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 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 13:38 -0700 |
| Subject | How atomic clocks measure time |
| Message-ID | <ccc48a65-5500-4bf6-b9b5-d94af3d8c2e3@googlegroups.com> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3bea1c0-3a77-42f4-a52d-81ebca44692a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
Shut the hell up Dumb Dick You are a totally Ignorant unskilled Fool totally unqualified to be commenting because YOU REFUSE TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT ELECTRODYNAMICS!!! GO AWAY FOOL SHIT TALKER MORON DOTARD !!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp3d0o$hhf$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
Ed Lake wrote: > 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. Totally nonsense. Slowing down as a consequence of FRICTION with what? That thing state shifts, submersed into a chamber felt with vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b588b0b-8133-4b13-8bb4-f666f2209b70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474022 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:40:44 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > 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. > > Totally nonsense. Slowing down as a consequence of FRICTION with what? > That thing state shifts, submersed into a chamber felt with vacuum. Subatomic particles slow down their spin or oscillation rates because of a conflict with the speed of light. Things cannot go faster than the speed of light in our universe, so if you have something that is moving laterally WHILE spinning, the spinning has to slow down. Otherwise, when the spin is moving in the same direction as the lateral movement, the speed of light is exceeded. I have a paper about it that I wrote in April 2016. It is here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp5icf$51d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474075 |
Ed Lake wrote: > Subatomic particles slow down their spin or oscillation rates because of > a conflict with the speed of light. Things cannot go faster than the > speed of light in our universe, so if you have something that is moving > laterally WHILE spinning, the spinning has to slow down. Otherwise, > when the spin is moving in the same direction as the lateral movement, > the speed of light is exceeded. > I have a paper about it that I wrote in April 2016. It is here: > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you are moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf from that site.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13b242c2-a2fe-4484-bac1-aa45df7c7962@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474090 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > Subatomic particles slow down their spin or oscillation rates because of > > a conflict with the speed of light. Things cannot go faster than the > > speed of light in our universe, so if you have something that is moving > > laterally WHILE spinning, the spinning has to slow down. Otherwise, > > when the spin is moving in the same direction as the lateral movement, > > the speed of light is exceeded. > > I have a paper about it that I wrote in April 2016. It is here: > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you are > moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf from > that site. Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one another that are one second apart. The body that is moving the fastest will measure seconds from the other body as being LONG. The body that is moving the slowest will measure seconds from the other body as being SHORT. The pdf is on vixra.org BECAUSE it disagrees with the beliefs of many people. It and other papers there explain WHY those people are wrong. http://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake If I was concerned about being unemployable, I guess I'd have to agree with everyone so that they wouldn't think I'm a troublemaker. I don't do things that way. If I see they are wrong, I tell them so, and if that's a problem, it's their problem not mine. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp6101$vqp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474108 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf >> >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you >> are moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf >> from that site. > > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In > reality, > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to > one another that are one second apart. Not inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows. Just think, again. Do you think would be possible?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5216c95-8e76-441a-9c9a-95c16912ba4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474114 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 4:33:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > >> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > >> > >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you > >> are moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf > >> from that site. > > > > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In > > reality, > > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to > > one another that are one second apart. > > Not inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows. Just think, > again. Do you think would be possible? I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference frame to another, and you are talking about what happens "inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows." We need to be talking about the same things if we want to have a meaningful discussion. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp7tcf$lc0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474175 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference > frame to another ... To be more precise, signals are simultaneously present in all reference frames, you cannot send them from one frame to another. You have probably wanted to say, that the signal sources and receivers are in rest and are evaluated in different reference frames. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8410a776-4e0c-4138-a1a2-300bdcbf3348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474182 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > > > > > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference > > frame to another ... > > To be more precise, > signals are simultaneously present in all reference frames, > you cannot send them from one frame to another. > > You have probably wanted to say, > that the signal sources and receivers > are in rest and are evaluated > in different reference frames. I am talking about reality, you are STILL talking about mathematical models. Sending signals from my LOCATION on earth to your location on an airplane is sending a signal from one frame to another. You are misunderstanding something. In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp7uqo$ua5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474185 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: >> > >> > >> > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference >> > frame to another ... >> >> To be more precise, >> signals are simultaneously present in all reference frames, >> you cannot send them from one frame to another. >> >> You have probably wanted to say, >> that the signal sources and receivers >> are in rest and are evaluated >> in different reference frames. > > I am talking about reality, you are STILL talking about mathematical models. No, you are talking about your rather funny model of reality. > Sending signals from my LOCATION on earth to your location on an airplane > is sending a signal from one frame to another. Do you see ? Very funny model. Physics does not used space limited reference frames in Euclidean spaces. The Earth and the airplane are in both frames, except in your reality model nobody else uses. > In reality, no one is "at rest." As rest is relative as motion is, everybody is and is not in rest, depending on reference frame the rest or motion relates=refers itself. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c126ba64-257a-48d6-aa24-d573c2f2f74b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474187 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:09:14 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference > >> > frame to another ... > >> > >> To be more precise, > >> signals are simultaneously present in all reference frames, > >> you cannot send them from one frame to another. > >> > >> You have probably wanted to say, > >> that the signal sources and receivers > >> are in rest and are evaluated > >> in different reference frames. > > > > I am talking about reality, you are STILL talking about mathematical models. > > No, you are talking about your rather funny model of reality. > > > Sending signals from my LOCATION on earth to your location on an airplane > > is sending a signal from one frame to another. > > Do you see ? > Very funny model. > Physics does not used space limited reference frames in Euclidean > spaces. I'm talking about Einstein's theories of time dilation, not about "Euclidian spaces." > > The Earth and the airplane are in both frames, except > in your reality model nobody else uses. In Einstein's theories, which NEARLY EVERYONE USES, each inertial frame moves at a different velocity UNLESS light travels from A to B and from B to A in the same amount of time. And, when you observe from one frame to another, you will see that time moves at a slower rate in the frame that is moving the fastest. > > > In reality, no one is "at rest." > > As rest is relative as motion is, > everybody is and is not in rest, > depending on reference frame > the rest or motion relates=refers itself. IN REALITY, NO ONE IS "AT REST." And motion is "relative" only in the sense that I am moving relative to you and you are stationary relative to me. Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp84su$7jq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474189 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:09:14 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > > > I'm talking about Einstein's theories of time dilation, not about > "Euclidian spaces." What includes Euclidean spaces, what you would know if you know them better. > > > In Einstein's theories, which NEARLY EVERYONE USES, .. except you. each inertial frame moves > at a different velocity UNLESS light travels from A to B and from B to A in > the same amount of time. As I have just said. Except you. You like to say the theories say what they do not > > IN REALITY, NO ONE IS "AT REST." Only if you do not know what rest means in physics . You should refresh your knowledge of classical physics. > > Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics: Repeated nonsense is still nonsense. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp877e$md7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474175 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> >> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf >> >> >> >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you >> >> are moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf >> >> from that site. >> > >> > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In >> > reality, >> > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to >> > one another that are one second apart. >> >> Not inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows. Just think, >> again. Do you think would be possible? > > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference > frame to another, and you are talking about what happens "inside a Faraday > cage opaque elevator with no windows." The point is that there is no difference in linear steady state motion and staying still. Capisce now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b1c1bdf-c9a0-4c01-849d-5da6cde4edd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474206 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:32:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Gish wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > >> >> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > >> >> > >> >> you got it upside down. There are no sensors in the world telling you > >> >> are moving. It reveals severe unemployability. Please remove that pdf > >> >> from that site. > >> > > >> > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In > >> > reality, > >> > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to > >> > one another that are one second apart. > >> > >> Not inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows. Just think, > >> again. Do you think would be possible? > > > > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one reference > > frame to another, and you are talking about what happens "inside a > Faraday > > cage opaque elevator with no windows." > > The point is that there is no difference in linear steady state motion and > staying still. Capisce now? That is just mathematical model gibberish. It has nothing to do with reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppa3a8$1hmv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474219 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> >> Not inside a Faraday cage opaque elevator with no windows. Just >> >> think, >> >> again. Do you think would be possible? >> > >> > I'm talking about what happens when you send signals from one >> > reference frame to another, and you are talking about what happens >> > "inside a >> Faraday >> > cage opaque elevator with no windows." >> >> The point is that there is no difference in linear steady state motion >> and staying still. Capisce now? > > That is just mathematical model gibberish. It has nothing to do with > reality. gilgamesh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 02:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp69ml$3av$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474108 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one > another that are one second apart. In reality, you can tell who is moving faster wrt to YOU, that is not the same as who is moving faster. If A and B move wrt each other, and if A1 is in rest wrt A and if B1 is in rest wrt B, then for A, B1 is faster then A1 and for B, A1 is faster then B1. Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c62d88b6-690b-4bfd-b918-45922fe59002@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474129 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:02:33 PM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > > Yes, you believe the same nonsense that a lot of others believe. In reality, > > you CAN tell who is moving faster than the other by sending signals to one > > another that are one second apart. > > In reality, > you can tell who is moving faster wrt to YOU, > that is not the same as who is moving faster. > > If A and B move wrt each other, > and if A1 is in rest wrt A > and if B1 is in rest wrt B, > > then for A, B1 is faster then A1 > and for B, A1 is faster then B1. > > Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? I am talking about reality, you are talking about mathematical models. In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp7tio$lc0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #474176 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:02:33 PM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > >> >> In reality, >> you can tell who is moving faster wrt to YOU, >> that is not the same as who is moving faster. >> >> If A and B move wrt each other, >> and if A1 is in rest wrt A >> and if B1 is in rest wrt B, >> >> then for A, B1 is faster then A1 >> and for B, A1 is faster then B1. >> >> Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? > > I am talking about reality, you are talking about mathematical models. > In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the > earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth > orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the > center of the Milky Way Galaxy. > > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. > Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. So does every velocity is relative, There is no absolute velocity. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93fab02a-7064-4282-ba69-287f4cb72a43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474183 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:47:54 AM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> Wrote in message: > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:02:33 PM UTC-5, Libor Striz wrote: > > > >> > >> In reality, > >> you can tell who is moving faster wrt to YOU, > >> that is not the same as who is moving faster. > >> > >> If A and B move wrt each other, > >> and if A1 is in rest wrt A > >> and if B1 is in rest wrt B, > >> > >> then for A, B1 is faster then A1 > >> and for B, A1 is faster then B1. > >> > >> Which is faster, A1 or B1 ? > > > > I am talking about reality, you are talking about mathematical models. > > In reality, no one is "at rest." We are all moving around the center of the > > earth as it spins on its axis, we are moving at 67,000 mph as the earth > > orbits the sun, and we are all moving at 486,000 mph as the sun orbits the > > center of the Milky Way Galaxy. > > > > If I move relative to you, one of is is moving FASTER than the other. PERIOD. > > Reciprocal motion is the #1 DUMBEST idea in physics:http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > The both your paragraphs strongly contradict themselves. How? Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making claims? > > Every motion is relarive, as you say, thwre is no absolute rest. > > So does every velocity is relative, > There is no absolute velocity. I understand that is what you BELIEVE. It is standard DOGMA. But it is WRONG. There may or may not be any "stationary" point in the universe, but there is definitely a SPEED LIMIT. That speed limit is the speed of light. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for you. When you reach the speed of light, TIME STOPS. If you are moving closer to the speed of light than I am, then time will be slower for you than for me. PERIOD. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web