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 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fda86a1-91c7-4304-9dab-8ea640d88447@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474454 |
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2018, 11:35:09 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > > > passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > > > when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > > > > > If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can > > > be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. > > > > > > Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll > > > respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never > > > happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to > > > justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. > > > > > > Ed > > > > I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: > > > > You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: > > > > "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like > > odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows > > fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through > > spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." > > > > and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: > > > > "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and > > the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And > > therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if > > you consider a clock to be like an odometer." > > > > It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not > > the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called > > "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then > > comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the > > one who is older than the brother who made the travel. > > > > The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the equation, (see details in > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): > > > > ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 > > > > In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: > > > > ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 > > > > Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. > > > > You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. > > Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. > > Ed You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is mathematical gibberish nonsense. Beyond all these shortcomings, you are also unable to read even basic scientific literature. All of your opinions (not the cites) are totally wrong and some of them are not even wrong. For all these problems you are wasting yours and ours times here. Stop trolling!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78f81deb-e314-42ec-bde5-3f17e646ef26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474488 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 20:59:34 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. > > It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is > mathematical gibberish nonsense. Speaking of Pythagorean theorem, it's always good to remind that your bunch of idiot has rejected id, together with the whole Euclidean geometry, because it didn't want to cooperate with your madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd86ef55-e883-408b-9a34-936cdbd10051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474488 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2018, 11:35:09 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > > > > passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > > > > when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > > > > > > > If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can > > > > be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. > > > > > > > > Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll > > > > respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never > > > > happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to > > > > justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: > > > > > > You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: > > > > > > "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like > > > odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows > > > fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through > > > spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." > > > > > > and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: > > > > > > "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and > > > the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And > > > therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if > > > you consider a clock to be like an odometer." > > > > > > It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not > > > the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called > > > "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then > > > comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the > > > one who is older than the brother who made the travel. > > > > > > The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the equation, (see details in > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): > > > > > > ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 > > > > > > In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: > > > > > > ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 > > > > > > Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. > > > > > > You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. > > > > Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > > time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. > > > > Ed > > You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. > > It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is > mathematical gibberish nonsense. > > Beyond all these shortcomings, you are also unable to read even basic scientific > literature. > > All of your opinions (not the cites) are totally wrong and some of them are > not even wrong. > > For all these problems you are wasting yours and ours times here. > > Stop trolling!!! I'm about done with this thread. It is turning into nothing but opinion versus opinion arguments and people maliciously distorting what I say in order to create false arguments. There is no hope in changing anyone's views here. My only reason for being here is to understand how mathematicians think. It would never have occurred to me that anyone can look at a statement written in a scientific paper that says "moving clocks run slow" and argue that the author actually meant "moving clocks run at the same rate as stationary clocks" because that is the only way things make sense to mathematicians. It is asinine. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f365628-86e8-4f1e-ae26-510aa40214e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474503 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >"moving clocks run slow" and argue that the author actually > meant "moving clocks run at the same rate as stationary clocks" Correct. We have been telling you this for quite some time. The expression "moving clocks run slow" is just that! An expression, a vulgerization, a loose description. You need to accept the fact that words/expressions have contextual meanings. Here, if two values differ, say on clocks, then val_1 < val_2. That is all. **Then**, sloppy authors may say that one is 'slower' than the other. But there is nothing slower in 5 < 6, say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 02:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pph4ov$15fg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474503 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2018, 11:35:09 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >>>> El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >>>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> >>>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >>>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >>>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? >>>>> >>>>> If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can >>>>> be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. >>>>> >>>>> Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll >>>>> respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never >>>>> happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to >>>>> justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: >>>> >>>> You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: >>>> >>>> "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like >>>> odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows >>>> fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through >>>> spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." >>>> >>>> and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: >>>> >>>> "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and >>>> the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And >>>> therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if >>>> you consider a clock to be like an odometer." >>>> >>>> It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not >>>> the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called >>>> "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then >>>> comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the >>>> one who is older than the brother who made the travel. >>>> >>>> The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of >>>> spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the >>>> equation, (see details in >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): >>>> >>>> ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 >>>> >>>> In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: >>>> >>>> ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 >>>> >>>> Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. >>>> >>>> You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. >>> >>> Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about >>> time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. >>> >>> Ed >> >> You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. >> >> It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is >> mathematical gibberish nonsense. >> >> Beyond all these shortcomings, you are also unable to read even basic scientific >> literature. >> >> All of your opinions (not the cites) are totally wrong and some of them are >> not even wrong. >> >> For all these problems you are wasting yours and ours times here. >> >> Stop trolling!!! > > I'm about done with this thread. It is turning into nothing but opinion > versus opinion arguments and people maliciously distorting what I say in order > to create false arguments. > > There is no hope in changing anyone's views here. My only reason for being > here is to understand how mathematicians think. It would never have occurred > to me that anyone can look at a statement written in a scientific paper that > says "moving clocks run slow" and argue that the author actually meant > "moving clocks run at the same rate as stationary clocks" because that is the only > way things make sense to mathematicians. It is asinine. > > Ed > Anybody who engages in discussing purely for the sake of arming himself against opponents is not really interested in learning anything. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pph81d$194g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474516 |
On 10/8/2018 10:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >>> El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2018, 11:35:09 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >>>>> El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >>>>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >>>>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >>>>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? >>>>>> >>>>>> If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can >>>>>> be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll >>>>>> respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never >>>>>> happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to >>>>>> justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: >>>>> >>>>> You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: >>>>> >>>>> "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like >>>>> odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows >>>>> fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through >>>>> spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." >>>>> >>>>> and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: >>>>> >>>>> "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and >>>>> the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And >>>>> therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if >>>>> you consider a clock to be like an odometer." >>>>> >>>>> It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not >>>>> the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called >>>>> "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then >>>>> comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the >>>>> one who is older than the brother who made the travel. >>>>> >>>>> The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of >>>>> spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the >>>>> equation, (see details in >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): >>>>> >>>>> ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 >>>>> >>>>> In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: >>>>> >>>>> ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 >>>>> >>>>> Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. >>>>> >>>>> You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. >>>> >>>> Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about >>>> time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. >>>> >>>> Ed >>> >>> You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. >>> >>> It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is >>> mathematical gibberish nonsense. >>> >>> Beyond all these shortcomings, you are also unable to read even basic scientific >>> literature. >>> >>> All of your opinions (not the cites) are totally wrong and some of them are >>> not even wrong. >>> >>> For all these problems you are wasting yours and ours times here. >>> >>> Stop trolling!!! >> >> I'm about done with this thread. It is turning into nothing but opinion >> versus opinion arguments and people maliciously distorting what I say in order >> to create false arguments. >> >> There is no hope in changing anyone's views here. My only reason for being >> here is to understand how mathematicians think. It would never have occurred >> to me that anyone can look at a statement written in a scientific paper that >> says "moving clocks run slow" and argue that the author actually meant >> "moving clocks run at the same rate as stationary clocks" because that is the only >> way things make sense to mathematicians. It is asinine. >> >> Ed >> > > Anybody who engages in discussing purely for the sake of arming himself > against opponents is not really interested in learning anything. > This is a PERFECT description of yourself, Boinker. You have shown time and again you have no interest in learning anything. You only get off on arguing with kooks to try to make yourself feel superior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03e1cc85-0c47-4c7c-a68c-8ff9566b55c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474516 |
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 04:45:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2018, 11:35:09 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > >>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >>>> El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > >>>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >>>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >>>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? > >>>>> > >>>>> If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can > >>>>> be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll > >>>>> respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never > >>>>> happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to > >>>>> justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>> I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: > >>>> > >>>> You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: > >>>> > >>>> "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like > >>>> odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows > >>>> fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through > >>>> spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." > >>>> > >>>> and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: > >>>> > >>>> "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and > >>>> the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And > >>>> therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if > >>>> you consider a clock to be like an odometer." > >>>> > >>>> It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not > >>>> the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called > >>>> "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then > >>>> comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the > >>>> one who is older than the brother who made the travel. > >>>> > >>>> The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of > >>>> spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the > >>>> equation, (see details in > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): > >>>> > >>>> ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 > >>>> > >>>> In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: > >>>> > >>>> ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 > >>>> > >>>> Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. > >>>> > >>>> You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. > >>> > >>> Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > >>> time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> You clearly and evidently are not a mathematician nor a physicist. > >> > >> It is also quite clear that for you the Pythagorean theorem above is > >> mathematical gibberish nonsense. > >> > >> Beyond all these shortcomings, you are also unable to read even basic scientific > >> literature. > >> > >> All of your opinions (not the cites) are totally wrong and some of them are > >> not even wrong. > >> > >> For all these problems you are wasting yours and ours times here. > >> > >> Stop trolling!!! > > > > I'm about done with this thread. It is turning into nothing but opinion > > versus opinion arguments and people maliciously distorting what I say in order > > to create false arguments. > > > > There is no hope in changing anyone's views here. My only reason for being > > here is to understand how mathematicians think. It would never have occurred > > to me that anyone can look at a statement written in a scientific paper that > > says "moving clocks run slow" and argue that the author actually meant > > "moving clocks run at the same rate as stationary clocks" because that is the only > > way things make sense to mathematicians. It is asinine. > > > > Ed > > > > Anybody who engages in discussing purely for the sake of arming himself > against opponents is not really interested in learning anything. Fools, they don't want to learn idiot woodworker's teachings that GPS is made broken!! They don't want to hear his personal, obviously right, interpretation of Pythagorean theorem!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <582b2cb2-1d46-45c0-b3b6-d49b67c9e78c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474225 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:06:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:13:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> >You are wasting my time. You are saying the same thing I'm saying, but just > >> >phrasing it differently to justify your beliefs. > > >> No, you are claiming that something happens in the clock when it changes > >> altitude. It doesn't; it keeps perfect time without adjustment. Because > >> of the changing path through spacetime, comparisons with clocks at rest > >> in other frames will change. > > >Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different > >altitudes and velocities. I've been trying to get people here to discuss > >how atomic clocks SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - > >probably because the FACTS contradict their beliefs. > > If "something" changes requiring the clock to adjust, then the First > Postulate is null and void, because of the change. If there was a change > requiring adjustment, then the laws of physics aren't the same. As I've explained to you a HUNDRED TIMES, the laws of physics ARE the same, BUT the laws contain VARIABLES. And TIME IS A VARIABLE. So, the laws can APPEAR to work the same way in two different frames and yet, if you COMPARE results in one frame to another, there will be differences due the fact that TIME moves at different rates in different frames. > > And how does the clock know what to adjust TO? Read any description of how atomic clocks work. There's a feedback mechanism that works like a radio tuner. It tunes the clock to work at the same frequency as cesium atoms vibrate. Sources: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html http://web.archive.org/web/20150404181730/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/atomic_clocks.aspx https://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm http://discovermagazine.com/1996/dec/aclockmoreperfec938 https://www.mpoweruk.com/timekeepers.htm https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html > > Regardless, the description of the clock operation is simply that of a > phase locked loop, VERY common engineering design for an oscillator to > track a frequency. The effect is "adjustment" to KEEP it from adjusting, > keeping the frequency locked. I'm an EE so I know about phase locked > loops. The "adjustment" (over a VERY narrow range in this case) is to > keep the oscillator oscillating at the same frequency as the Cs atoms' > transition frequency. Right. And when you raise the clock, the atoms' frequency changes and the clock has to be "tuned" to get back to the right frequency, i.e, the frequency at which cesium atoms' electrons oscillate. > > >I also posted what the NIST has to say about it, but they ignored that, too, > >and claim that no one supports what I say. The NIST does: > > <snip quotes about known GR gravitational effect> > > Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower > gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since > Einstein's first GR work in 1915. More time is NOT experienced in lower gravity situations, SLOWER time is what is experienced. So, someone in a lower gravity situation experiences LESS time. Science knew about this since Einstein's first GR work in 1915. You just misinterpret it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 05:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppc4dm$lms$10@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474269 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:06:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> No, you are claiming that something happens in the clock when it changes >> >> altitude. It doesn't; it keeps perfect time without adjustment. Because >> >> of the changing path through spacetime, comparisons with clocks at rest >> >> in other frames will change. >> >> >Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different >> >altitudes and velocities. I've been trying to get people here to discuss >> >how atomic clocks SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - >> >probably because the FACTS contradict their beliefs. >> >> If "something" changes requiring the clock to adjust, then the First >> Postulate is null and void, because of the change. If there was a change >> requiring adjustment, then the laws of physics aren't the same. >As I've explained to you a HUNDRED TIMES, the laws of physics ARE the same, >BUT the laws contain VARIABLES. And TIME IS A VARIABLE. WRONG. Time is more like a coordinate, like the x y z axes of space in 3d space. That's why Einstein came up with spacetime. > So, the laws can >APPEAR to work the same way in two different frames and yet, if you COMPARE >results in one frame to another, there will be differences due the fact that >TIME moves at different rates in different frames. WRONG. Part of all inertial references being the same is that it doesn't matter where (on the x y z coordinates) I do an experiment. If I react sodium and chlorine here or in the Andromeda galaxy, I'll get the same results. Same with time. >> And how does the clock know what to adjust TO? >Read any description of how atomic clocks work. There's a feedback >mechanism that works like a radio tuner. It tunes the clock to work >at the same frequency as cesium atoms vibrate. Sources: >https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html >http://web.archive.org/web/20150404181730/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/atomic_clocks.aspx >https://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm >http://discovermagazine.com/1996/dec/aclockmoreperfec938 >https://www.mpoweruk.com/timekeepers.htm >https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html But if the cesium atom is wandering around in frequency, how can it be a standard? >> Regardless, the description of the clock operation is simply that of a >> phase locked loop, VERY common engineering design for an oscillator to >> track a frequency. The effect is "adjustment" to KEEP it from adjusting, >> keeping the frequency locked. I'm an EE so I know about phase locked >> loops. The "adjustment" (over a VERY narrow range in this case) is to >> keep the oscillator oscillating at the same frequency as the Cs atoms' >> transition frequency. >Right. And when you raise the clock, the atoms' frequency changes and the >clock has to be "tuned" to get back to the right frequency, i.e, the frequency >at which cesium atoms' electrons oscillate. If the Cs frequency changes, it cannot be a standard! Don't you realize how stupid what you wrote sounds? Anyway, ideal clocks work like this: Locally they keep perfect time. If two synchronized clocks are separated and one goes to the top of a mountain and returns, and one has 1000000 ticks and the other 999999 ticks, because they kept perfect time locally, it means the clock with 1000000 ticks experienced more time than the other. That is how SR/GR work. That is why the traveling twin is younger, he EXPERIENCED LESS TIME! >> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower >> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since >> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. >More time is NOT experienced in lower gravity situations, SLOWER time is >what is experienced. Wrong. Ideal clocks keep perfect time. If synchronized ideal clocks differ in reading after something happens, it means they experienced different amounts of time, and different amounts of time caused different numbers of ticks in the two clocks. Remember, all clocks do is measure accumulated time. If the number of ticks differ, it means the experienced time amounts differ. Simple as that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dd72b5a-a77d-4d87-b423-3263fc31b47e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474336 |
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 12:09:12 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:06:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: All that you do is repeat the same arguments over and over. That is a total waste of time. I'm just going to ignore your other posts. I'll respond to this one because it addresses the subject of how atomic clocks work. > >> And how does the clock know what to adjust TO? > > >Read any description of how atomic clocks work. There's a feedback > >mechanism that works like a radio tuner. It tunes the clock to work > >at the same frequency as cesium atoms vibrate. Sources: > >https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html > >http://web.archive.org/web/20150404181730/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/atomic_clocks.aspx > >https://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm > >http://discovermagazine.com/1996/dec/aclockmoreperfec938 > >https://www.mpoweruk.com/timekeepers.htm > >https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html > > But if the cesium atom is wandering around in frequency, how can it be > a standard? A cesium atom is VERY CONSTANT when it is in one location. That location is officially the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. The clock at that location is the "standard" used by many other clocks. So, if you want to measure time relative to that "standard," you must periodically adjust your clock to match that "standard." The cesium atom is a very stable atom. As long as it remains in one location it can be used to measure time at that location. It can be a "standard." If you move the clock by raising it or lowering it or by transporting it, it can no longer by a standard. The clock will slow down when lowered and while moving, and it will speed up when raised or brought to a stop. > > >> Regardless, the description of the clock operation is simply that of a > >> phase locked loop, VERY common engineering design for an oscillator to > >> track a frequency. The effect is "adjustment" to KEEP it from adjusting, > >> keeping the frequency locked. I'm an EE so I know about phase locked > >> loops. The "adjustment" (over a VERY narrow range in this case) is to > >> keep the oscillator oscillating at the same frequency as the Cs atoms' > >> transition frequency. > > >Right. And when you raise the clock, the atoms' frequency changes and the > >clock has to be "tuned" to get back to the right frequency, i.e, the frequency > >at which cesium atoms' electrons oscillate. > > If the Cs frequency changes, it cannot be a standard! Don't you realize > how stupid what you wrote sounds? I realize that you have NO understanding of what a "standard" is. Do you really believe that the clock that is transported around can be a "standard"? To be a "standard," the clock must be ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY RELATIVE TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. Move the clock and it will deviate from its own "standard." > > Anyway, ideal clocks work like this: Locally they keep perfect time. If > two synchronized clocks are separated and one goes to the top of a > mountain and returns, and one has 1000000 ticks and the other 999999 > ticks, because they kept perfect time locally, it means the clock with > 1000000 ticks experienced more time than the other. That is how SR/GR > work. That is why the traveling twin is younger, he EXPERIENCED LESS TIME! We appear to agree on that!! But what is an "ideal clock". I would use the words "atomic clocks" instead of "ideal clocks" in the above paragraph. > > >> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower > >> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since > >> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. > > >More time is NOT experienced in lower gravity situations, SLOWER time is > >what is experienced. > > Wrong. Ideal clocks keep perfect time. If synchronized ideal clocks differ > in reading after something happens, it means they experienced different > amounts of time, and different amounts of time caused different numbers > of ticks in the two clocks. Remember, all clocks do is measure accumulated > time. If the number of ticks differ, it means the experienced time amounts > differ. Simple as that! Right, as simple as that - IF you are talking about atomic clocks. But you seem to be saying that an atomic clock is NOT an "ideal clock." How does an "ideal clock" differ from an "atomic clock"? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppdpkd$hl7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474369 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 12:09:12 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >All that you do is repeat the same arguments over and over. And all you do is ignore my (and others') corrections and post your opinions of what happens and claim they are facts. > That is a total waste of time. Yes, it does appear you are incapable of learning. "Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever." (I don't know where that quote is from) > I'm just going to ignore your other posts. "Run away! Run away!!" >> But if the cesium atom is wandering around in frequency, how can it be >> a standard? >A cesium atom is VERY CONSTANT when it is in one location. But you indirectly claimed it is wandering around in frequency because the oscillator has to keep adjusting to compensate. The phase locked loop and adjustment is so that the oscillator remains locked onto the Cs frequency. All oscillators tend to drift due to component aging, temperature variation etc. They need to be kept locked on. > That location is >officially the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. The clock at that >location is the "standard" used by many other clocks. So, if you want to >measure time relative to that "standard," you must periodically adjust your >clock to match that "standard." No, now there is a network of atomic clocks which all keep in step. A standard at any one spot won't work because just gravitational time effect will keep any other clock at a different altitude. Can be corrected the same way the GPS clock is. >The cesium atom is a very stable atom. As long as it remains in one location >it can be used to measure time at that location. Incorrect. As long as it is a proper clock (look up the definition), it will keep proper time at the location. >If you move the clock by raising it or lowering it or by transporting it, >it can no longer by a standard. It is to the local observer as long as it remains a proper clock. If it goes off on a trip, then that is correct. > The clock will slow down when lowered and >while moving, and it will speed up when raised or brought to a stop. Your incorrect opinions noted and disregarded. >> If the Cs frequency changes, it cannot be a standard! Don't you realize >> how stupid what you wrote sounds? >I realize that you have NO understanding of what a "standard" is. Your incorrect opinions noted and disregarded. > Do you >really believe that the clock that is transported around can be a "standard"? If it is a proper clock to the observer, yes. Otherwise no. >To be a "standard," the clock must be ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY RELATIVE TO >THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth. It must be stationary and local to the observer. > Move the clock and it will deviate from its own >"standard." Relative to whom? The local observer? >> Anyway, ideal clocks work like this: Locally they keep perfect time. If >> two synchronized clocks are separated and one goes to the top of a >> mountain and returns, and one has 1000000 ticks and the other 999999 >> ticks, because they kept perfect time locally, it means the clock with >> 1000000 ticks experienced more time than the other. That is how SR/GR >> work. That is why the traveling twin is younger, he EXPERIENCED LESS TIME! >We appear to agree on that!! But what is an "ideal clock". One which measures local proper time passing perfectly. > I would use the >words "atomic clocks" instead of "ideal clocks" in the above paragraph. I'm discussing GR and Einstein's ideal clocks. Atomic clocks, while the closest we get to ideal clocks, didn't exist during Einstein's time. >> >> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower >> >> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since >> >> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. >> >> >More time is NOT experienced in lower gravity situations, SLOWER time is >> >what is experienced. >> >> Wrong. Ideal clocks keep perfect time. If synchronized ideal clocks differ >> in reading after something happens, it means they experienced different >> amounts of time, and different amounts of time caused different numbers >> of ticks in the two clocks. Remember, all clocks do is measure accumulated >> time. If the number of ticks differ, it means the experienced time amounts >> differ. Simple as that! >Right, as simple as that - IF you are talking about atomic clocks. I'm talking about ideal clocks, theoretically even better than modern atomic clocks. > But you >seem to be saying that an atomic clock is NOT an "ideal clock." How does >an "ideal clock" differ from an "atomic clock"? Perfect vs. nearly perfect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13be5075-f292-4881-a245-f58951efb089@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474218 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:13:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > > >> Those at a different altitude will see their clocks keep perfect time > > >> as well. All ideal clocks keep perfect time locally. > > >> > > >> [snip misinterpreted relativity quotes] > > > > >You are wasting my time. You are saying the same thing I'm saying, but just > > >phrasing it differently to justify your beliefs. > > > > No, you are claiming that something happens in the clock when it changes > > altitude. It doesn't; it keeps perfect time without adjustment. Because > > of the changing path through spacetime, comparisons with clocks at rest > > in other frames will change. > > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different > altitudes and velocities. I've been trying to get people here to discuss > how atomic clocks SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - > probably because the FACTS contradict their beliefs. I replied in another post about what the atomic clock adjustment really does, and it has nothing to do with different altitudes and velocities. > > I also posted what the NIST has to say about it, but they ignored that, too, > and claim that no one supports what I say. The NIST does: > > "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. > NOTE the measured by comparing clocks. > "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." > > "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." > > Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > Ed The NIST example was also by comparing clocks. Both clocks follow the laws of physics which determines the frequency produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium. So please make clear your claim. Is it: A) The laws of physics are the same everywhere so that the difference in the clock measurements is due to time itself passing at different rates. or B) The physics of the clocks differ so that the frequency of the cesium transition changes, which means that time passes at an absolute rate everywhere. There does not seem to be a middle ground that I can see. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0de7c86-0f26-4ab4-973d-3e8d53c40a2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474457 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:28:28 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:13:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > > > > >> Those at a different altitude will see their clocks keep perfect time > > > >> as well. All ideal clocks keep perfect time locally. > > > >> > > > >> [snip misinterpreted relativity quotes] > > > > > > >You are wasting my time. You are saying the same thing I'm saying, but just > > > >phrasing it differently to justify your beliefs. > > > > > > No, you are claiming that something happens in the clock when it changes > > > altitude. It doesn't; it keeps perfect time without adjustment. Because > > > of the changing path through spacetime, comparisons with clocks at rest > > > in other frames will change. > > > > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different > > altitudes and velocities. I've been trying to get people here to discuss > > how atomic clocks SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - > > probably because the FACTS contradict their beliefs. > > I replied in another post about what the atomic clock adjustment really > does, and it has nothing to do with different altitudes and velocities. > > > > I also posted what the NIST has to say about it, but they ignored that, too, > > and claim that no one supports what I say. The NIST does: > > > > "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. > > > NOTE the measured by comparing clocks. > > > "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." > > > > "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." > > > > Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > Ed > > The NIST example was also by comparing clocks. > > Both clocks follow the laws of physics which determines the frequency > produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states > of caesium. > > So please make clear your claim. Is it: > A) The laws of physics are the same everywhere so that the difference > in the clock measurements is due to time itself passing at different rates. > or > B) The physics of the clocks differ so that the frequency of the cesium > transition changes, which means that time passes at an absolute > rate everywhere. > > There does not seem to be a middle ground that I can see. I don't see anything wrong with option A. That agrees with Einstein. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, BUT time is a VARIABLE within the laws of physics. "Time is that which is measured by a clock. This is a sound way of looking at things. A quantity like time, or any other physical measurement, does not exist in a completely abstract way. We find no sense in talking about something unless we specify how we measure it. It is the definition by the method of measuring a quantity that is the one sure way of avoiding talking nonsense about this kind of thing." - Sir Hermann Bondi, from "Relativity and Common Sense: A New Approach to Einstein." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58c5916f-6b41-438c-a215-e2fde2a6e21f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474461 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:28:28 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: [] > > > > The NIST example was also by comparing clocks. > > > > Both clocks follow the laws of physics which determines the frequency > > produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states > > of caesium. > > > > So please make clear your claim. Is it: > > A) The laws of physics are the same everywhere so that the difference > > in the clock measurements is due to time itself passing at different rates. > > or > > B) The physics of the clocks differ so that the frequency of the cesium > > transition changes, which means that time passes at an absolute > > rate everywhere. > > > > There does not seem to be a middle ground that I can see. > > I don't see anything wrong with option A. That agrees with Einstein. > The laws of physics are the same everywhere, BUT time is a VARIABLE > within the laws of physics. > > "Time is that which is measured by a clock. This is a sound way of looking at > things. A quantity like time, or any other physical measurement, does not exist > in a completely abstract way. We find no sense in talking about something > unless we specify how we measure it. It is the definition by the method of > measuring a quantity that is the one sure way of avoiding talking nonsense > about this kind of thing." - Sir Hermann Bondi, from "Relativity and Common > Sense: A New Approach to Einstein." > > Ed So you finally agree that cesium atoms do NOT change their frequency within an atomic clock. Glad we got that cleared up. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4eee8285-8d85-4370-b50c-37ccaec0b891@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474480 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:55:19 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:28:28 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > [] > > > > > > The NIST example was also by comparing clocks. > > > > > > Both clocks follow the laws of physics which determines the frequency > > > produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states > > > of caesium. > > > > > > So please make clear your claim. Is it: > > > A) The laws of physics are the same everywhere so that the difference > > > in the clock measurements is due to time itself passing at different rates. > > > or > > > B) The physics of the clocks differ so that the frequency of the cesium > > > transition changes, which means that time passes at an absolute > > > rate everywhere. > > > > > > There does not seem to be a middle ground that I can see. > > > > I don't see anything wrong with option A. That agrees with Einstein. > > The laws of physics are the same everywhere, BUT time is a VARIABLE > > within the laws of physics. > > > > "Time is that which is measured by a clock. This is a sound way of looking at > > things. A quantity like time, or any other physical measurement, does not exist > > in a completely abstract way. We find no sense in talking about something > > unless we specify how we measure it. It is the definition by the method of > > measuring a quantity that is the one sure way of avoiding talking nonsense > > about this kind of thing." - Sir Hermann Bondi, from "Relativity and Common > > Sense: A New Approach to Einstein." > > > > Ed > > So you finally agree that cesium atoms do NOT change their frequency > within an atomic clock. You are reading something that isn't there. You are wasting my time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 19:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b2d79244-5742-524d-70f5-0b52bcfaebb0@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474457 |
Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different >> altitudes and velocities. No, of course not. >> I've been trying to get people here to discuss how atomic clocks >> SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - probably because >> the FACTS contradict their beliefs. No, but because it is pure fiction. > I replied in another post about what the atomic clock adjustment really > does, and it has nothing to do with different altitudes and velocities. Oh, but it has. The satellites are *in orbit*, at different altitude than clocks on the ground (which means they are at different gravitational potential/spacetime curvature), and they are *in orbit*, they are *moving* relative to the clocks on the ground. Which is why the satellite’s atomic clocks would be continuously and increasingly ahead of the ground clocks if their time-counting mechanism would not have been adjusted accordingly. This would make it impossible for them to be being used as a globally available timekeeping device and the basis for geopositioning. See also Pogge 2018 and Ashby 2003. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8bacdee-1ea5-4581-a04e-8749207d7d17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474478 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:17:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > >> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are SELF ADJUSTING. They ADJUST to different > >> altitudes and velocities. > > No, of course not. > > >> I've been trying to get people here to discuss how atomic clocks > >> SELF-ADJUST, but everyone is avoiding discussing it - probably because > >> the FACTS contradict their beliefs. > > No, but because it is pure fiction. > > > I replied in another post about what the atomic clock adjustment really > > does, and it has nothing to do with different altitudes and velocities. > > Oh, but it has. The satellites are *in orbit*, at different altitude than > clocks on the ground (which means they are at different gravitational > potential/spacetime curvature), and they are *in orbit*, they are *moving* > relative to the clocks on the ground. Which is why the satellite’s atomic > clocks would be continuously and increasingly ahead of the ground clocks if > their time-counting mechanism would not have been adjusted accordingly. > This would make it impossible for them to be being used as a globally > available timekeeping device and the basis for geopositioning. > > See also Pogge 2018 and Ashby 2003. Thomas, You gave useful information but you missed the point of the discussion. GPS requires adjustment between multiple clocks. However, Ed Lake is confused about the self adjustment of an individual atomic clock. Two very different problems. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a8e50c8f-7a81-6e13-ca66-b271c562abd7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474483 |
Edward Prochak wrote: > You gave useful information Thank you. > but you missed the point of the discussion. No, I do not think so. > GPS requires adjustment between multiple clocks. ”Adjustment between [plural of a noun]” is gibberish. Adjustment is something that is done to *one* thing at a time. GPS requires *synchronization* of the clock(s) of one GPS satellites with the clock(s) of another GPS satellite (there are backup clocks aboard), or IOW synchronization between them. In theory, *one* *adjusted* atomic clock in orbit would suffice. But it is more practical to have several of them as reference, because not all satellites are in line-of-sight of each other, and *global* precision of timekeeping is of the essence. > However, Ed Lake is confused about the self adjustment of an individual > atomic clock. Two very different problems. I am aware of that. I am also aware that you have a misconception about why such an atomic clock needs adjustment for use in orbit, and apparently also about how GPS works in general. You should read my posting more carefully, and follow the references. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppg63p$1jn8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474478 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> I replied in another post about what the atomic clock adjustment really >> does, and it has nothing to do with different altitudes and velocities. > > Oh, but it has. The satellites are *in orbit*, at different altitude > than clocks on the ground (which means they are at different > gravitational potential/spacetime curvature), and they are *in orbit*, > they are *moving* relative to the clocks on the ground. Which is why > the satellite’s atomic clocks would be continuously and increasingly > ahead of the ground clocks if their time-counting mechanism would not > have been adjusted accordingly. This would make it impossible for them > to be being used as a globally available timekeeping device and the > basis for geopositioning. Actually the ground clocks ticks wrong. More wrong than the satellite clocks. UTC 2018-10-08 17:55:32 GPS 2018-10-08 17:55:49 LORAN 2018-10-08 17:55:58 TAI 2018-10-08 17:56:08
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 20:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <85bf12f7-3813-6b60-be77-6ea4d85d6766@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474484 |
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Paul Gish" <uop@uwrwuao.tc> (fake domain) > Actually the ground clocks ticks wrong. More wrong than the satellite > clocks. […] LOL. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect> *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web