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 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa2508a8-d675-4465-b2a7-19e7e5965e2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474478 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 19:46:41 UTC+2, 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 if anyone treated seriously these moronic "standards" of your insane bunch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CdSdnRi4_aGkTCrGnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #474109 |
On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > raised to a higher altitude? Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". > What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is > moved at high speeds? Nothing. The clock does not "slow down". > [... H&K abstract] > What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? Nothing happened "INSIDE THE CLOCK", H*K are just speaking loosely. The way this is modeled in GR is that the earthbound and airplane clocks followed different paths through spacetime (this cannot possibly be denied), and those paths have different elapsed proper times (this also cannot possibly be denied). If, as you claim, the the clocks changed tick rates, then GR would be refuted, because the difference in those paths' elapsed proper times FULLY accounts for the measured differences. Your fantasy also requires you to ignore the ISO definition of the second, and go off into never-never land claiming "seconds are of different duration" (even though the definition denies that). Bottom line: you have never understood the implication of Einstein's first postulate of SR: the laws of physics that govern the ticking of clocks are THE SAME in every inertial frame, so such clocks TICK AT THE SAME RATE; GR extends this to every locally inertial frame -- experiments confirm both. (It is the GEOMETRY OF SPACETIME that makes comparisons of clocks behave as they do.) Due to your COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of these basic facts, essentially everything you write is flat-out WRONG. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40a5e545-87f0-4cfb-9f10-5245cb588bb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474221 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > > raised to a higher altitude? > > Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket. "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase." "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 > > > What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is > > moved at high speeds? > > Nothing. The clock does not "slow down". See quotes above. > > > [... H&K abstract] > > What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? > > Nothing happened "INSIDE THE CLOCK", H*K are just speaking loosely. So, they were MISLEADING PEOPLE? Why? > > The way this is modeled in GR is that the earthbound and airplane clocks > followed different paths through spacetime (this cannot possibly be > denied), and those paths have different elapsed proper times (this also > cannot possibly be denied). > > If, as you claim, the the clocks changed tick rates, > then GR would be refuted, because the difference in > those paths' elapsed proper times FULLY accounts for > the measured differences. Your fantasy also requires > you to ignore the ISO definition of the second, and > go off into never-never land claiming "seconds are > of different duration" (even though the definition > denies that). The NIST says: "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." See above for the rest. > > Bottom line: you have never understood the implication of Einstein's > first postulate of SR: the laws of physics that govern the ticking of > clocks are THE SAME in every inertial frame, so such clocks TICK AT THE > SAME RATE; GR extends this to every locally inertial frame -- > experiments confirm both. (It is the GEOMETRY OF SPACETIME that makes > comparisons of clocks behave as they do.) Due to your COMPLETE LACK OF > UNDERSTANDING of these basic facts, essentially everything you write is > flat-out WRONG. > > Tom Roberts According to the NIST, according to Hafele and Keating, and according to EVERY EXPERIMENTER who has done time dilation experiments with clocks, time ticks at different rates at different altitudes and different velocities. Here is another example: "Time passes with different speeds depending how far you are away from large masses,” Christian Lisdat, co-author of the study and physicist of Germany’s National Meteorology Institute, told Newsweek. That large mass is Earth. “Time really changes,” he added, explaining that “if you go up, time passes more quickly.” The gravity further above sea level at the top of a mountain is weaker, so time literally moves slightly faster. The difference, however, is tiny." Source: https://www.newsweek.com/portable-atomic-clocks-can-measure-height-mountain-and-it-could-help-805431 More: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-017-0042-3 Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 01:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp8qk8$1ov0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474222 |
Op 05-okt-2018 om 23:26 schreef Ed Lake: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is >>> raised to a higher altitude? >> >> Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". > > The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. > > "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations > — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has > been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying > rocket. > > "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or > about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand > a couple of steps higher on a staircase." > > "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 > >> >>> What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is >>> moved at high speeds? >> >> Nothing. The clock does not "slow down". > > See quotes above. > >> >>> [... H&K abstract] >>> What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? >> >> Nothing happened "INSIDE THE CLOCK", H*K are just speaking loosely. > > So, they were MISLEADING PEOPLE? Why? They are not misleading people. They are just talking over your head. As is everybody here, and they don't seem to be aware of it. Imagine having someone like that as a teacher :-| Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e58efbe-48ed-4c4d-aef5-dde0192f0858@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474222 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > Nothing happened "INSIDE THE CLOCK", H*K are just speaking loosely. > > So, they were MISLEADING PEOPLE? Why? We already explained why. Have you already forgotten "why" ? Have you forgotten that it was explained to you? Cant you figure it out on your own? Think about these questions... > According to the NIST, according to Hafele and Keating, and according to > EVERY EXPERIMENTER who has done time dilation experiments with clocks, > time ticks at different rates at different altitudes and different > velocities. Not true, but they may *express* it that way, for lack of other words or brevity. <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5789beac-610a-4935-91f9-d7e081931e4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474222 |
El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2018, 18:26:43 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > > > raised to a higher altitude? > > > > Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". > > The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. > > "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations > — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has > been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying > rocket. > > "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or > about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand > a couple of steps higher on a staircase." > Edward, you continue to demonstrate your poor reading of scientific documentation!! For sure, "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations", nobody is saying here the opposite. What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not equal to "clock ticks". The sources for making that contrast have been explained to you several times. Clocks are used to measure the passing of time. Einstein SR and GR models indicate that, in our Universe, space and time are intertwined and that the presence of mass generates curvature of spacetime, affecting the trayectory of even massless objects (such as photons). This curvature is quite evident in the so called Einstein Rings (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring). The GR model predicts that time passes faster for locations the farther apart from the mass generating the curvature of spacetime. Both SR and GR models assert that all physical laws have the same form in all local frames of reference. That means the mechanism used in the operation of an atomic clock will be independent of the speed or gravity where the clock is located. All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 seconds in the Chou at al experiment. Finally, your poor reading of how a cesium atomic clock works is quite evident. You have said multiple wrong things about those clocks, even if the cites you use do not say anything close to what you say they affirm. The actual time-reference of an atomic clock consists of an electronic oscillator operating at microwave frequency. The oscillator is arranged so that its frequency-determining components include an element that can be controlled by a feedback signal. The feedback signal keeps the oscillator tuned in resonance with the frequency of the electronic transition of caesium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6daec165-1726-43e3-868e-85e6766e3471@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474255 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2018, 18:26:43 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > > > > raised to a higher altitude? > > > > > > Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". > > > > The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. > > > > "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations > > — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has > > been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying > > rocket. > > > > "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > > have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or > > about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand > > a couple of steps higher on a staircase." > > > > > Edward, you continue to demonstrate your poor reading of scientific > documentation!! > > For sure, "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher > elevations", nobody is saying here the opposite. > > What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not > equal to "clock ticks". So you claim. But the facts say that time passing IS equal to clock ticks. > > The sources for making that contrast have been explained to you several times. > > Clocks are used to measure the passing of time. > > Einstein SR and GR models indicate that, in our Universe, space and time are > intertwined and that the presence of mass generates curvature of spacetime, > affecting the trayectory of even massless objects (such as photons). This > curvature is quite evident in the so called Einstein Rings (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring). > > The GR model predicts that time passes faster for locations the farther apart > from the mass generating the curvature of spacetime. > > Both SR and GR models assert that all physical laws have the same form in all > local frames of reference. > > That means the mechanism used in the operation of an atomic clock will be > independent of the speed or gravity where the clock is located. No, it doesn't. The mechanism within the clock ADJUSTS the length of a second to MATCH the speed and gravity where the clock is located. That is the whole purpose of an atomic clock. It uses ATOMS to keep time, and ATOMS change their oscillation rates when gravity or velocity changes. > > All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify > what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous > clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 > seconds in the Chou at al experiment. In order to have "elapsed readings," clocks MUST tick at different rates. You make no sense. How can clocks have different "elapsed readings" if they did NOT tick at different rates? > > Finally, your poor reading of how a cesium atomic clock works is quite evident. > You have said multiple wrong things about those clocks, even if the cites > you use do not say anything close to what you say they affirm. > > The actual time-reference of an atomic clock consists of an electronic > oscillator operating at microwave frequency. The oscillator is arranged so that > its frequency-determining components include an element that can be controlled > by a feedback signal. The feedback signal keeps the oscillator tuned in > resonance with the frequency of the electronic transition of caesium. Right. It keeps the clock ticking 9,192,631,770 times "per second." When a clock begins to tick faster because it has been raised to a higher altitude, the clock adjusts to make a second SHORTER so that the clock still ticks 9,192,631,770 times per second. The actual length of a second is variable, but the TICK COUNT is adjusted to always be the same COUNT "per second." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53834a54-02e4-4941-b909-88b2fdfb7565@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474271 |
El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2018, 12:47:12 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not > > equal to "clock ticks". > > So you claim. But the facts say that time passing IS equal to clock ticks. > Clocks measure the passing of time. Clocks are not time or an expression of time!!! Time is a more fundamental characteristic of Nature, like length, width and height. Whether you have or not a clock time is passing. > > That means the mechanism used in the operation of an atomic clock will be > > independent of the speed or gravity where the clock is located. > > No, it doesn't. The mechanism within the clock ADJUSTS the length of a > second to MATCH the speed and gravity where the clock is located. That is > the whole purpose of an atomic clock. It uses ATOMS to keep time, and ATOMS > change their oscillation rates when gravity or velocity changes. > No, first there is nothing related to "atom oscillating rates" or cesium spinning at 9,192,631,770 Hz > > > > All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify > > what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous > > clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 > > seconds in the Chou at al experiment. > > In order to have "elapsed readings," clocks MUST tick at different rates. > You make no sense. How can clocks have different "elapsed readings" if they > did NOT tick at different rates? > Easy...because when reunited (see Hafele-Keating), the clocks are showing the elapsed readings of their different paths through spacetime. This should be easy to you to understand: The ground clock had coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1) the same coordinates than the flown clocks, AT THE BEGINING OF THE EXPERIMENT. The path the ground clock followed is clearly different from the path the flown clocks followed. Hafele-Keating clearly give the equations which describe this difference of path, specifically equation 2: T-To=[gh/c^2 - (2R Omega v + v^2)/(2c^2)]To So the clocks, being extremely accurate and not changing their tick rates, were able to measure these elapsed times differences. > > The actual time-reference of an atomic clock consists of an electronic > > oscillator operating at microwave frequency. The oscillator is arranged so that > > its frequency-determining components include an element that can be controlled > > by a feedback signal. The feedback signal keeps the oscillator tuned in > > resonance with the frequency of the electronic transition of caesium. > > Right. It keeps the clock ticking 9,192,631,770 times "per second." When a > clock begins to tick faster because it has been raised to a higher altitude, > the clock adjusts to make a second SHORTER so that the clock still ticks > 9,192,631,770 times per second. The actual length of a second is variable, > but the TICK COUNT is adjusted to always be the same COUNT "per second." > > Ed That is a complete invention of yours, having nothing to do with how a clock works. Your ignorance is showing and it is not funny anymore. Bye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <203ed26d-6ecb-4208-b191-695834f7c1db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474276 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2018, 12:47:12 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not > > > equal to "clock ticks". > > > > So you claim. But the facts say that time passing IS equal to clock ticks. > > > > Clocks measure the passing of time. Clocks are not time or an expression of > time!!! > > Time is a more fundamental characteristic of Nature, like length, width and > height. Whether you have or not a clock time is passing. Those are not "fundamental characteristics of Nature." Those are concepts created by HUMANS in an attempt to understand Nature. The fundamental flaw in your belief is that time does NOT pass at the same rate at every location. Time passes more slowly for a location that is moving faster than another location. You do not explain: time is passing FOR WHAT? If it is an object without a clock, it still experiences time passing. It AGES. The aging process is a clock. The only place where time does NOT pass is in a vacuum where there is nothing that ages or decays or transforms in any way. Clocks provide a way of measuring the passage of time very PRECISELY. The aging process cannot be measured with the same kind of precision. > > > > > That means the mechanism used in the operation of an atomic clock will be > > > independent of the speed or gravity where the clock is located. > > > > No, it doesn't. The mechanism within the clock ADJUSTS the length of a > > second to MATCH the speed and gravity where the clock is located. That is > > the whole purpose of an atomic clock. It uses ATOMS to keep time, and ATOMS > > change their oscillation rates when gravity or velocity changes. > > > > No, first there is nothing related to "atom oscillating rates" or cesium > spinning at 9,192,631,770 Hz You make no sense. The electrons in a cesium atom oscillate at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and they will change from being negatively charged to become positively charged if they are hit by a photon that oscillates at 9,192,631,770 Hz. If the photon oscillates faster or slower than 9,192,631,770 Hz, it will just pass through the atom. So, when that happens inside an atomic clock, what the atomic clock does is adjust the oscillation rate of the microwave photons to MATCH the oscillation rate of the cesium electrons. In effect, it makes a second longer or shorter, since one second is defined as 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > > > > > > All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify > > > what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous > > > clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 > > > seconds in the Chou at al experiment. > > > > In order to have "elapsed readings," clocks MUST tick at different rates. > > You make no sense. How can clocks have different "elapsed readings" if they > > did NOT tick at different rates? > > > > Easy...because when reunited (see Hafele-Keating), the clocks are showing > the elapsed readings of their different paths through spacetime. This should > be easy to you to understand: The ground clock had coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1) > the same coordinates than the flown clocks, AT THE BEGINING OF THE EXPERIMENT. > The path the ground clock followed is clearly different from the path the > flown clocks followed. But those "paths" only mean something in a MATHEMATICAL MODEL. In reality they have no meaning. In reality, the moving clocks ran slower. > > Hafele-Keating clearly give the equations which describe this difference of > path, specifically equation 2: > > T-To=[gh/c^2 - (2R Omega v + v^2)/(2c^2)]To > > So the clocks, being extremely accurate and not changing their tick rates, > were able to measure these elapsed times differences. But they also stated over and over that the moving clocks ran slower. They just used your mathematical model to do the computations. Evidently, there is no way to do the computations based upon clocks ticking at different rates, probably because the clocks constantly change their tick rates. So, they use a model where the problem of clocks changing rates is ignored. > > > > The actual time-reference of an atomic clock consists of an electronic > > > oscillator operating at microwave frequency. The oscillator is arranged so that > > > its frequency-determining components include an element that can be controlled > > > by a feedback signal. The feedback signal keeps the oscillator tuned in > > > resonance with the frequency of the electronic transition of caesium. > > > > Right. It keeps the clock ticking 9,192,631,770 times "per second." When a > > clock begins to tick faster because it has been raised to a higher altitude, > > the clock adjusts to make a second SHORTER so that the clock still ticks > > 9,192,631,770 times per second. The actual length of a second is variable, > > but the TICK COUNT is adjusted to always be the same COUNT "per second." > > > > Ed > > That is a complete invention of yours, having nothing to do with how a clock > works. The feedback system within an atomic clock is like an automated radio tuner. If the signal is lost, the tuner automatically searches for it by changing the oscillation frequency of the microwave photons it shoots at the atoms. It changes the frequency until it finds the frequency that matches the atoms' frequency. Then, regardless of the actual frequency, a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 oscillations becomes one second as measured by the clock. But, you have made it perfectly clear why you cannot see or understand reality. You cannot do the math based upon reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppat0i$tgk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474280 |
Ed Lake wrote: > The only place where time does NOT pass is in a vacuum where there is > nothing that ages or decays or transforms in any way. YOu dismiss your own argument already. Once you have degrees of freedom, that's time inculded. > Clocks provide a > way of measuring the passage of time very PRECISELY. The aging process > cannot be measured with the same kind of precision. not even not even wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 12:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2614191a-eef6-4475-95c2-dc24aaf63e1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474280 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:35:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > The fundamental flaw in your belief is that time does NOT pass at the > same rate at every location. Time passes more slowly for a location > that is moving faster than another location. That is your *belief*. We are not interested in your beliefs, but only in FACTS. > The only place where time does NOT pass is in a vacuum That is your BELIEF. We are not interested in your beliefs, but only in FACTS. > > No, first there is nothing related to "atom oscillating rates" or cesium > > spinning at 9,192,631,770 Hz > > You make no sense. LOL! You are saying to yourslef that you dont make any sense!!! YOU wrote that "atom oscillating rates" and you reply to yourslef "you make no sense". Good one! You are now arguing against yourself w/o even realizing it... cookoo... > The electrons in a cesium atom oscillate at 9,192,631,770 > Hz, and they will change from being negatively charged to become > positively charged LOL! positively charged *electrons* ! Good one! You are demented ed; do you realize that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca0598eb-af86-42c3-b9c0-1b48a6489c19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474298 |
On Saturday, 6 October 2018 21:50:20 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > That is your *belief*. We are not interested in your beliefs, but only in FACTS. in FACTS believed by us, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 05:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppc4tb$lms$11@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474271 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> Edward, you continue to demonstrate your poor reading of scientific >> documentation!! >> For sure, "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher >> elevations", nobody is saying here the opposite. >> What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not >> equal to "clock ticks". >So you claim. But the facts say that time passing IS equal to clock ticks. No. Clocks MEASURE time. They are NOT time. A thermometer MEASURES temperature. A thermometer IS NOT temperature. An ammmeter MEASURES electric current. An ammmeter IS NOT electric current. Understand? >> All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify >> what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous >> clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 >> seconds in the Chou at al experiment. >In order to have "elapsed readings," clocks MUST tick at different rates. >You make no sense. How can clocks have different "elapsed readings" if they >did NOT tick at different rates? The clocks always tick at their correct rate. If the readings differ, it means they experienced different amounts of time. >Right. It keeps the clock ticking 9,192,631,770 times "per second." Not "per second." PER SECOND. By definition. All Cs-133 atoms are identical. The readings CANNOT differ. Do remember the time is the LOCAL proper time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <126b1779-2184-40e6-acdb-5000bb08278e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474255 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 7:42:28 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2018, 18:26:43 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations > > — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has > > been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying > > rocket. > > > > "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > > have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or > > about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand > > a couple of steps higher on a staircase." > > What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" is not > equal to "clock ticks". Of course, time is what clock ticks accumulate. If idiots like you have not figured out yet, ask a 3-year-old what time it is. <shaking head> > Einstein SR and GR models indicate that, in our Universe, space and time are > intertwined and that the presence of mass generates curvature of spacetime, > affecting the trayectory of even massless objects (such as photons). Spacetime is not a brainchild of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Minkowski, and the concept of time and space intertwining is the root cause of the twin paradox which is a fatal contradiction to SR as explained below. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/tJwxlVCia3Y/Ir7OzFe9BQAJ > This curvature is quite evident in the so called Einstein Rings (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring). Big fvcking deal! Any Aether based theory can easily predict the same thing. However, in GR’s case, the deflection of a photon is in agreement with Newtonian not what is believed by the self-styled physicists today. See below derivation. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/wUR5Ara-DHU/_ndghkBeBgAJ > The GR model predicts that time passes faster for locations the farther apart > from the mass generating the curvature of spacetime. Any Aether based theory predicts the same thing. <shrug> > Both SR and GR models assert that all physical laws have the same form in all > local frames of reference. All theories must do so not just SR and GR. Or else, there can be no mathematical models to predict observations, dumb ass! <shrug> > That means the mechanism used in the operation of an atomic clock will be > independent of the speed or gravity where the clock is located. Not necessarily. Curvature can affect so. After all, GR prefers a curvature state that is the flat spacetime. <shrug> > All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify > what SR and GR models predict. Yes, that should be so, but the self-styled physicists have been confusing the observed remote local clock tick rate with the intrinsic remote local clock tick rate. Because of this confusion, these idiots manage to brush the fatal contradiction of the twin paradox under the rug. <shrug> > [rest of accusations to deflect your ignorance snipped] What a bunch of idiots! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppb38h$17e1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474293 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > "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." >> >> What we are expressing, which you do not grasp, is that "time passes" >> is not equal to "clock ticks". > > Of course, time is what clock ticks accumulate. If idiots like you have > not figured out yet, ask a 3-year-old what time it is. <shaking head> Interesting, how did they make it those 3 years then, without knowing it? Hmm, I strongly suspect another severe case of not understanding relativity, already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee910483-216e-40af-b4f7-bb365c036429@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474222 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > > > raised to a higher altitude? > > > > Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". > > The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. > > "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." Please read what you quoted: "time passes" does not contradict Tom's statement of: The clock does NOT "speed up". > > "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 > > > > > > What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is > > > moved at high speeds? > > > > Nothing. The clock does not "slow down". > > See quotes above. Read it in context. Keep the first paragraph in mind. > > > > > > [... H&K abstract] > > > What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? > > > > Nothing happened "INSIDE THE CLOCK", H*K are just speaking loosely. > > So, they were MISLEADING PEOPLE? Why? H*K wrote their results decades ago and were speaking to fellow scientists. The NIST article does have some of that poorer wording also. Most readers seem to get the correct meaning. > > > > > The way this is modeled in GR is that the earthbound and airplane clocks > > followed different paths through spacetime (this cannot possibly be > > denied), and those paths have different elapsed proper times (this also > > cannot possibly be denied). > > > > If, as you claim, the the clocks changed tick rates, > > then GR would be refuted, because the difference in > > those paths' elapsed proper times FULLY accounts for > > the measured differences. Your fantasy also requires > > you to ignore the ISO definition of the second, and > > go off into never-never land claiming "seconds are > > of different duration" (even though the definition > > denies that). > > The NIST says: > "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." > > See above for the rest. > Read the first line. "time passes faster" and "measured by comparing clocks" So it is not misleading. the clock measures time and the rate of time changed. Similar to two flow meters measuring the flow of a river, one near shore and one in the middle. The meters do not change, it is the flow that changes. So if we were measuring the volume of water passing we might say the middle meter is counting faster than the near shore meter. But the meters are adjusting themselves. And it is perfectly clear to pretty much everyone that the meaning is about the water passing, just as with the clocks measuring the time passing are "running" slower or faster. > > > > Bottom line: you have never understood the implication of Einstein's > > first postulate of SR: the laws of physics that govern the ticking of > > clocks are THE SAME in every inertial frame, so such clocks TICK AT THE > > SAME RATE; GR extends this to every locally inertial frame -- > > experiments confirm both. (It is the GEOMETRY OF SPACETIME that makes > > comparisons of clocks behave as they do.) Due to your COMPLETE LACK OF > > UNDERSTANDING of these basic facts, essentially everything you write is > > flat-out WRONG. > > > > Tom Roberts > > According to the NIST, according to Hafele and Keating, and according to > EVERY EXPERIMENTER who has done time dilation experiments with clocks, > time ticks at different rates at different altitudes and different velocities. > > Here is another example: > > "Time passes with different speeds depending how far you are away from large > masses,” Christian Lisdat, co-author of the study and physicist of Germany’s > National Meteorology Institute, told Newsweek. That large mass is Earth. > > “Time really changes,” he added, explaining that “if you go up, time passes > more quickly.” The gravity further above sea level at the top of a mountain is > weaker, so time literally moves slightly faster. The difference, however, is > tiny." > > Source: https://www.newsweek.com/portable-atomic-clocks-can-measure-height-mountain-and-it-could-help-805431 > > More: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-017-0042-3 > > Ed Again, read what you quoted: "Time passes with different speeds" and “Time really changes,”. It is right there in front of you. Pay attention. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 19:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c9ef6d5a-8b96-9a42-f789-bd4ffa67f61f@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474459 |
Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 10/4/18 4:53 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is >>>> raised to a higher altitude? >>> >>> Nothing. The clock does NOT "speed up". >> >> The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) disagrees with you. >> >> "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." > > Please read what you quoted: "time passes" does not contradict > Tom's statement of: The clock does NOT "speed up". Well, it does, because a clock is a device that measures time. The problem is instead that the NIST statement is an (over)simplification, albeit a common one, probably because the human brain is not wired for completely abstract concepts like general relativity and quantum mechanics, and you cannot really understand this merely intuitively. So all simple descriptions of them are wrong in some sense. Time does not pass faster at higher elevations. Instead, *more* (proper) time is accumulated at higher altitudes in equal intervals of proper time at lower altitudes (less gravitational potential, greater spacetime curvature). Time passes *differently*. This makes it *appear* as if time passes faster, and clocks (which are measuring time) ticking faster, at higher altitudes when clocks at different altitudes are compared. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84cf5e09-78fd-4aa7-b6e8-51458ed11a2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
I found this information on page 63 of a book titled "The Physics of Metrology":
"Cesium atoms have six electron shells, housing a total of 55 orbiting
electrons in numbers of 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1. With this distribution, each shell
houses the highest possible number of electrons it can support, except for the
outermost shell with its single electron. Only the latter will flip in response
to radiation at the cesium’s critical frequency, while the inner shells are too
stable to be affected. This critical frequency turns out to be 9,192,631,770
oscillations per second. And by international agreement, the SI second (atomic
second) became the interval of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium
133 atom when exposed to suitable excitation."
If you look at illustrations of a cesium atom, sure enough, there is 1 electron
in the outermost circle (or shell or orbit), there are 8 electrons in the next
circle, 18 in the next, another 18 in the next, 8 in the next, and 2 in the
circle closest to the nucleus.
The key to making atomic clocks work is the 1 lone electron that is spinning
around the nucleus in the outermost orbit. It can be made to spin in the same
direction the nucleus spins, or in the opposite direction. When you change the
direction of the spin of that electron, you do not stop it and send it in the
opposite direction, you flip the orbit like you would flip over a phonograph
record (remember those) or a 2 sided DVD, except that the electron keeps moving
as its orbit (or shell) flips. The result is a change in the magnetic
properties of the entire atom. Instead of negative, the atom becomes
magnetically positive.
And what can cause that electron to flip its orbit? Being hit by a photon that
is oscillating 9,192,631,770 times per second. If the photon is oscillating
faster than that or slower than that, the electron won't flip. So, you know an
atomic clock is ticking at the correct rate when, inside the atomic clock, a
ray of photons hits a beam of negatively charged cesium atoms and most of the
outermost electrons in the atoms flip their orbits to a positive charge.
If fewer than the acceptable number of atoms flip their magnetic charges, then
the clock will adjust the oscillation frequency of the photons until the
maximum flips are again reached. Changing the oscillation frequency of the
photons doesn't change the length of a second, because, for time keeping
purposes, a second is still a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 oscillations. But, if you
were to compare how long it takes to COUNT 9,192,631,770 oscillations at one
altitude versus another, you would see it takes longer at lower altitudes and
it takes less time at higher altitudes.
The problem is: The books and papers about how atomic clocks work do not say
what will CAUSE the number of flips to decrease. They just tell you how the
clock adjusts the oscillation rate of the photons to get the flip rate back to
maximum. But, logically, the decrease in the number of flipped electrons must
be caused by movement of the clock (whether is is done by man or by Nature) or
by some fluctuation of the power source. The clock is shielded from changes in
the magnetic environment and most other possible causes for error.
What I'm trying to discuss here is the FACT that when a cesium atom is lowered
to a lower altitude its components will spin or oscillate slower. As a result,
the oscillation rate of the outermost electron will not be compatible with
the oscillation rate of the microwave photons being shot at it.
I think it is called "the Mössbauer effect." Photons emitted from an atoms at
one altitude are incompatible with identical atoms at a different altitude.
Doesn't anyone here want to discuss how atomic clocks work? I think they
ILLUSTRATE and EXPLAIN a lot about how time dilation works.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f7b7947-3c71-4106-995a-2d0b4d1e0a69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474192 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:02:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > I found this information on page 63 of a book titled "The Physics of Metrology": > > "Cesium atoms have six electron shells, housing a total of 55 orbiting > electrons in numbers of 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1. With this distribution, each shell > houses the highest possible number of electrons it can support, except for the > outermost shell with its single electron. Only the latter will flip in response > to radiation at the cesium’s critical frequency, while the inner shells are too > stable to be affected. This critical frequency turns out to be 9,192,631,770 > oscillations per second. And by international agreement, the SI second (atomic > second) became the interval of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium > 133 atom when exposed to suitable excitation." > > If you look at illustrations of a cesium atom, sure enough, there is 1 electron > in the outermost circle (or shell or orbit), there are 8 electrons in the next > circle, 18 in the next, another 18 in the next, 8 in the next, and 2 in the > circle closest to the nucleus. > > The key to making atomic clocks work is the 1 lone electron that is spinning > around the nucleus in the outermost orbit. It can be made to spin in the same > direction the nucleus spins, or in the opposite direction. When you change the > direction of the spin of that electron, you do not stop it and send it in the > opposite direction, you flip the orbit like you would flip over a phonograph > record (remember those) or a 2 sided DVD, except that the electron keeps moving > as its orbit (or shell) flips. The result is a change in the magnetic > properties of the entire atom. Instead of negative, the atom becomes > magnetically positive. > > And what can cause that electron to flip its orbit? Being hit by a photon that > is oscillating 9,192,631,770 times per second. If the photon is oscillating > faster than that or slower than that, the electron won't flip. So, you know an > atomic clock is ticking at the correct rate when, inside the atomic clock, a > ray of photons hits a beam of negatively charged cesium atoms and most of the > outermost electrons in the atoms flip their orbits to a positive charge. > > If fewer than the acceptable number of atoms flip their magnetic charges, then > the clock will adjust the oscillation frequency of the photons until the > maximum flips are again reached. Changing the oscillation frequency of the > photons doesn't change the length of a second, because, for time keeping > purposes, a second is still a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 oscillations. But, if you > were to compare how long it takes to COUNT 9,192,631,770 oscillations at one > altitude versus another, you would see it takes longer at lower altitudes and > it takes less time at higher altitudes. > > The problem is: The books and papers about how atomic clocks work do not say > what will CAUSE the number of flips to decrease. They just tell you how the > clock adjusts the oscillation rate of the photons to get the flip rate back to > maximum. But, logically, the decrease in the number of flipped electrons must > be caused by movement of the clock (whether is is done by man or by Nature) or > by some fluctuation of the power source. The clock is shielded from changes in > the magnetic environment and most other possible causes for error. Not quite. The purpose of adjusting the frequency is not associated with moving the clock (either inertially or up/down the gravity well). The reason for the automatic adjustment (i.e., a feedback circuit) is that the circuit generating the light is a physical device and subject to its environment. Any electrical circuit may have a tendency to drift due to small variations in the components (local heating for example) and due to large scale effects (room temperature for example). Thus, the light generated may not be precisely 9,192,631,770 Hz over long periods of time. So the cesium is used as a highly precise reference. Using that in a feedback keeps the oscillator circuit tuned to that frequency. So you see the reason for the tuning is not associated with relativity. It is associated with providing a precise reference clock. Normally these clocks are NOT moved in any direction. > > What I'm trying to discuss here is the FACT that when a cesium atom is lowered > to a lower altitude its components will spin or oscillate slower. As a result, > the oscillation rate of the outermost electron will not be compatible with > the oscillation rate of the microwave photons being shot at it. NO, Tom is correct and you misunderstand. The physics of the cesium atoms do not change with altitude. It is the rate of time that changes. The clock is just a very accurate measurement device. > > I think it is called "the Mössbauer effect." Photons emitted from an atoms at > one altitude are incompatible with identical atoms at a different altitude. No, Mössbauer effect (no need to quote is since it is a verified phenomenon) has nothing to do with gravity. "In the Mössbauer effect, a narrow resonance for nuclear gamma emission and absorption results from the momentum of recoil being delivered to a surrounding crystal lattice rather than to the emitting or absorbing nucleus alone. When this occurs, no gamma energy is lost to the kinetic energy of recoiling nuclei at either the emitting or absorbing end of a gamma transition: emission and absorption occur at the same energy, resulting in strong, resonant absorption." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_effect > > Doesn't anyone here want to discuss how atomic clocks work? I think they > ILLUSTRATE and EXPLAIN a lot about how time dilation works. > > Ed I just did. Hope you learned something. And if not you, then other readers. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48187ff2-6bb9-48be-9576-e019b64c9637@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474456 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:02:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > I found this information on page 63 of a book titled "The Physics of Metrology": > > > > "Cesium atoms have six electron shells, housing a total of 55 orbiting > > electrons in numbers of 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1. With this distribution, each shell > > houses the highest possible number of electrons it can support, except for the > > outermost shell with its single electron. Only the latter will flip in response > > to radiation at the cesium’s critical frequency, while the inner shells are too > > stable to be affected. This critical frequency turns out to be 9,192,631,770 > > oscillations per second. And by international agreement, the SI second (atomic > > second) became the interval of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium > > 133 atom when exposed to suitable excitation." > > > > If you look at illustrations of a cesium atom, sure enough, there is 1 electron > > in the outermost circle (or shell or orbit), there are 8 electrons in the next > > circle, 18 in the next, another 18 in the next, 8 in the next, and 2 in the > > circle closest to the nucleus. > > > > The key to making atomic clocks work is the 1 lone electron that is spinning > > around the nucleus in the outermost orbit. It can be made to spin in the same > > direction the nucleus spins, or in the opposite direction. When you change the > > direction of the spin of that electron, you do not stop it and send it in the > > opposite direction, you flip the orbit like you would flip over a phonograph > > record (remember those) or a 2 sided DVD, except that the electron keeps moving > > as its orbit (or shell) flips. The result is a change in the magnetic > > properties of the entire atom. Instead of negative, the atom becomes > > magnetically positive. > > > > And what can cause that electron to flip its orbit? Being hit by a photon that > > is oscillating 9,192,631,770 times per second. If the photon is oscillating > > faster than that or slower than that, the electron won't flip. So, you know an > > atomic clock is ticking at the correct rate when, inside the atomic clock, a > > ray of photons hits a beam of negatively charged cesium atoms and most of the > > outermost electrons in the atoms flip their orbits to a positive charge. > > > > If fewer than the acceptable number of atoms flip their magnetic charges, then > > the clock will adjust the oscillation frequency of the photons until the > > maximum flips are again reached. Changing the oscillation frequency of the > > photons doesn't change the length of a second, because, for time keeping > > purposes, a second is still a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 oscillations. But, if you > > were to compare how long it takes to COUNT 9,192,631,770 oscillations at one > > altitude versus another, you would see it takes longer at lower altitudes and > > it takes less time at higher altitudes. > > > > The problem is: The books and papers about how atomic clocks work do not say > > what will CAUSE the number of flips to decrease. They just tell you how the > > clock adjusts the oscillation rate of the photons to get the flip rate back to > > maximum. But, logically, the decrease in the number of flipped electrons must > > be caused by movement of the clock (whether is is done by man or by Nature) or > > by some fluctuation of the power source. The clock is shielded from changes in > > the magnetic environment and most other possible causes for error. > > Not quite. The purpose of adjusting the frequency is not associated with > moving the clock (either inertially or up/down the gravity well). > > The reason for the automatic adjustment (i.e., a feedback circuit) is > that the circuit generating the light is a physical device and subject > to its environment. Any electrical circuit may have a tendency to drift > due to small variations in the components (local heating for example) > and due to large scale effects (room temperature for example). Correct. That is why a STATIONARY atomic clock includes a way to automatically adjust (i.e., a feedback circuit). The point is: That same feedback circuit will ALSO adjust the clock's tick rate if you raise the clock to a higher altitude. The feedback circuit doesn't know WHY the clock frequency has "drifted." It just automatically adjusts to the CORRECT frequency. > > Thus, the light generated may not be precisely 9,192,631,770 Hz > over long periods of time. So the cesium is used as a highly precise > reference. Using that in a feedback keeps the oscillator circuit > tuned to that frequency. So you see the reason for the tuning > is not associated with relativity. It is associated with providing > a precise reference clock. > > Normally these clocks are NOT moved in any direction. Correct. But if you take that same clock and lift it to a higher altitude, it will automatically adjust to its new location and show seconds that are shorter than it showed when at the lower altitude. The clock doesn't know WHY it needed to adjust. It just adjusts automatically. > > > > What I'm trying to discuss here is the FACT that when a cesium atom is lowered > > to a lower altitude its components will spin or oscillate slower. As a result, > > the oscillation rate of the outermost electron will not be compatible with > > the oscillation rate of the microwave photons being shot at it. > > NO, Tom is correct and you misunderstand. The physics of the cesium > atoms do not change with altitude. It is the rate of time that changes. > The clock is just a very accurate measurement device. No, you are wrong. The "physics of the cesium atom" do not change, but the oscillation rates of its subatomic particles do. That is WHY atomic clocks run faster at higher altitudes. The subatomic particles in the cesium atom oscillate faster. > > > > > I think it is called "the Mössbauer effect." Photons emitted from an atoms at > > one altitude are incompatible with identical atoms at a different altitude. > > No, Mössbauer effect (no need to quote is since it is a verified > phenomenon) has nothing to do with gravity. Not the definition you use. But the Pound-Rebka experiment used a different definition that DID involve gravity. The way Pound-Rebka used it was to say that when an atom emits a photon, that photon will be absorbed by a duplicate atom at the same altitude. But if the duplicate atom is at a different altitude, the photon will NOT be absorbed. That is essentially what happens in an atomic clock. Microwave photons emitted toward cesium atoms will be absorbed by those atoms IF they are at the same altitude that the photons were created to match. If the atoms are at a different altitude, the feedback system must find the correct oscillation rate to match that altitude. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web