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 | 17 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 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <605dbca1-f676-4e7a-b7b3-83b2913d7325@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474460 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:01:33 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > 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. No. The tickrate of the clock is not changed due to altitude, so the feedback system has nothing to do with it. The feedback system is for drifts and will only "see" drifts. > The feedback circuit doesn't > know WHY the clock frequency has "drifted." Correct, and these drifts are not due to the change in altitude (or speeds). You seem to think that the feedback system (for stability) corrects for drifts and altitudes (and speeds). <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppg49n$4b0$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474460 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> 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. You contradict yourself. If the physics of the cesium atom doesn't change, the subatomic particles wouldn't "oscillate" at a different rate. (btw "oscillate" is the wrong term, the only oscillation is the circuit generating the microwaves) >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 effect is due to the different rates of time flow at the differing altitudes. A photon at one fixed frequency will be seen as being a different frequency due to the different rate of time at a different altitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c4e8a4b-82b1-44fd-88ab-ce72f4c0f0e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474472 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:31:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > >> 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. > > You contradict yourself. If the physics of the cesium atom doesn't change, > the subatomic particles wouldn't "oscillate" at a different rate. (btw > "oscillate" is the wrong term, the only oscillation is the circuit > generating the microwaves) Yes, you've made it clear that you cannot understand how physics can be the same when time changes. But that is what Einstein's theories are all about. > > >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 effect is due to the different rates of time flow at the differing > altitudes. A photon at one fixed frequency will be seen as being a > different frequency due to the different rate of time at a different > altitude. Which is what I said. So, we agree, but you see some difference somewhere. BTW, the photon will ACTUALLY have a different frequency due to the different rate of time at the different altitude. If it was just "seen as being a different frequency" because some atom needed glasses and couldn't "see" the actual frequency, the photon would be absorbed. It is abundantly clear that there is no possible reconciliation between your mistaken beliefs and the reality of Einstein's theories. So, we are wasting our time by arguing. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppgjbf$cn1$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474500 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:31:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> >> You contradict yourself. If the physics of the cesium atom doesn't change, >> the subatomic particles wouldn't "oscillate" at a different rate. (btw >> "oscillate" is the wrong term, the only oscillation is the circuit >> generating the microwaves) >Yes, you've made it clear that you cannot understand how physics can be the >same when time changes. Once again, one could make a device that measures your altitude by measuring how much the Cs oscillator drifts (by monitoring the feedback offset), therefore the local physics in all frames is different. GR states that you cannot tell, just from the clock, whether you are on top or the bottom of the mountain. You'd need some non-local reference, such as a signal from another clock known to be at the bottom of the mountain. (The view will also tell you, but...) > But that is what Einstein's theories are all about. No, Einstein's theories were all about how relative time (and other spacetime stuff) changes depending on velocity and gravitational potential, and the consequences thereof. >> >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 effect is due to the different rates of time flow at the differing >> altitudes. A photon at one fixed frequency will be seen as being a >> different frequency due to the different rate of time at a different >> altitude. >Which is what I said. So, we agree, but you see some difference somewhere. More or less time per oscillation of the frequency, my mistake. >BTW, the photon will ACTUALLY have a different frequency due to the different >rate of time at the different altitude. It is a measurable effect, yes. > If it was just "seen as being a >different frequency" because some atom needed glasses and couldn't "see" the >actual frequency, the photon would be absorbed. No, the source of the photon would be seen as experiencing a different amount of time (according to a destination observer), the photon itself does have the altered frequency as viewed in the destination's own frame. >It is abundantly clear that there is no possible reconciliation between your >mistaken beliefs and the reality of Einstein's theories. It is abundantly clear that there is no possible reconciliation between your mistaken beliefs and the reality of Einstein's theories. (hey, you said something correct for once, just in the wrong context!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aecdf21a-40a9-4493-a77d-7e86b857a6e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474509 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:48:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:31:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:50 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >> >> 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. > >> > >> You contradict yourself. If the physics of the cesium atom doesn't change, > >> the subatomic particles wouldn't "oscillate" at a different rate. (btw > >> "oscillate" is the wrong term, the only oscillation is the circuit > >> generating the microwaves) > > >Yes, you've made it clear that you cannot understand how physics can be the > >same when time changes. > > Once again, one could make a device that measures your altitude by > measuring how much the Cs oscillator drifts (by monitoring the feedback > offset), therefore the local physics in all frames is different. > GR states that you cannot tell, just from the clock, whether you are on > top or the bottom of the mountain. You'd need some non-local reference, > such as a signal from another clock known to be at the bottom of the > mountain. (The view will also tell you, but...) Why did you stop? You seemed to be understanding, and then you stop. You cannot determine your altitude by looking at a clock atop a mountain. You cannot determine your altitude by looking at a clock at the bottom of a mountain. That is what Einstein's First Postulate says. You CAN, however, determine your altitude by COMPARING cesium oscillation drifts (by monitoring the feedback offset) between a clock atop the mountain and a clock at the bottom of the mountain. That is what the Theory of Relativity is all about. The Theory of Relativity says that, while the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, there are VARIABLES in the laws of physics. How fast atoms oscillate is a variable. Time is a variable. So, the difference in cesium atom oscillations rates in an atomic clock at the top of a mountain versus a duplicate atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain will tell you the altitude difference between the two clocks. It's simple and has been repeatedly demonstrated. All you need to do is read the scientific papers AS THEY ARE WRITTEN without twisting and distorting things to make them fit your beliefs. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad36f4d0-9550-493b-8b5c-7c2ccba3fe12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474460 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:01:33 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > 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: [] > > > 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. You try to sound knowledgeable but you contradict yourself here. First, the cesium atoms do not oscillate (at least no in any manner relevant to the clock). Second, the laws of physics remain the same, therefore the cesium atoms do not change their properties. That you think the cesium atoms change shows you do not understand the first postulate of Relativity. > > > > > > > > > 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. So if you meant Pound-Rebka you should have said Pound-Rebka. > > 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. Mössbauer effect is about atomic recoil, NOT gravitational time dilation. That Pound-Rebka USED that effect in their experiment is not redefining the effect, any more than the fact that they used EM radiation redefines Maxwell's equations. > > 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 The photons used in atomic clocks are at the same gravitational potential. That is one aspect of the clock design, that it's dimensions not influence the operation of the clock. to put it one more way: Pound-Rebka does not influence the design of atomic clocks. IOW, since you are neither a physicist nor an engineer: The distance from microwave generator to the cesium atoms is small enough to NOT BE AFFECTED BY GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. I hope you may learn something here. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54dcbb22-847b-4270-9fdc-94647bed0590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474479 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:01:33 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > 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: > [] > > > > 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. > > You try to sound knowledgeable but you contradict yourself here. > First, the cesium atoms do not oscillate (at least no in any > manner relevant to the clock). "Atoms have characteristic oscillation frequencies. Perhaps the most familiar frequency is the orange glow from the sodium in table salt if it is sprinkled on a flame. An atom will have many frequencies, some at radio wavelength, some in the visible spectrum, and some in between the two. Cesium 133 is the element most commonly chosen for atomic clocks." Source: https://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm > Second, the laws of physics remain the same, therefore the > cesium atoms do not change their properties. For the umpteenth time: The laws remain the same, but the laws include VARIABLES, and time is one such VARIABLE. > > That you think the cesium atoms change shows you do not understand > the first postulate of Relativity. That you think the cesium atoms do NOT change shows you do not understand the first postulate of Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > So if you meant Pound-Rebka you should have said Pound-Rebka. > > > > 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. > > Mössbauer effect is about atomic recoil, NOT gravitational time dilation. > That Pound-Rebka USED that effect in their experiment is not redefining > the effect, any more than the fact that they used EM radiation redefines > Maxwell's equations. > > > > > 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 > > The photons used in atomic clocks are at the same gravitational potential. > That is one aspect of the clock design, that it's dimensions not influence > the operation of the clock. > > to put it one more way: Pound-Rebka does not influence the design > of atomic clocks. > > IOW, since you are neither a physicist nor an engineer: > The distance from microwave generator to the cesium atoms is small enough > to NOT BE AFFECTED BY GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. If the microwave generator is generating photons of the wrong oscillation frequency, it doesn't MATTER what the difference in altitude is between the microwave generator and the atoms. What matters is that frequency of the microwaves that are generated are different from the frequency that is needed to cause the atom to change its magnetic state. When that happens, the feedback system adjusts the microwave frequency to the correct frequency to change the atoms. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <713bc39e-1fb3-4ae8-97d0-b2f40cb790f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
How can ANYONE think that motion is reciprocal? It makes NO SENSE. If you look at our location in the universe, you see we are on a planet that spins at roughly 1,040 miles per hour at the equator. That 1,040 mph is RELATIVE to the poles, which just spin in place. But there is NOTHING RECIPROCAL about that movement. The poles cannot possibly move relative to the equator at 1,040 mph. We also know that our planet moves in an orbit around the sun, traveling at 67,000 miles per hour. So, RELATIVE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppbb4f$1lda$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474273 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > How can ANYONE think that motion is reciprocal? It makes NO SENSE. Inertial motion. > > If you look at our location in the universe, you see we are on a planet that > spins at roughly 1,040 miles per hour at the equator. That 1,040 mph is > RELATIVE to the poles, which just spin in place. Rotational motion isn’t inertial motion. Nut I’m aware you’re not quite sure what these words mean. > But there is NOTHING > RECIPROCAL about that movement. The poles cannot possibly move relative to > the equator at 1,040 mph. > > We also know that our planet moves in an orbit around the sun, traveling at > 67,000 miles per hour. So, RELATIVE > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 05:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppc5ao$lms$12@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474273 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >How can ANYONE think that motion is reciprocal? It makes NO SENSE. >If you look at our location in the universe, you see we are on a planet that >spins at roughly 1,040 miles per hour at the equator. That 1,040 mph is >RELATIVE to the poles, which just spin in place. But there is NOTHING >RECIPROCAL about that movement. The poles cannot possibly move relative to >the equator at 1,040 mph. >We also know that our planet moves in an orbit around the sun, traveling at >67,000 miles per hour. So, RELATIVE Circular motion (a form of acceleration) is NOT reciprocal. It can be reciprocal on a small scale if you consider the acceleration due to the circular motion is small and over a short period the equator moves at 1040 mph linearly relative to the earth's axis. Note the H-K experiment was once around the earth and thus cannot be used to validate simple inertial motion of SR. H-K was essentially a traveling twin experiment with lots of gravity time dilations thrown in to confuse matters. But the scientists who did it weren't dumb, they were able to use simplified GR to combine their traveling twins (traveling triplets) with the gravity effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0938d07-3436-457e-bc2c-3301b3bf5b60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
Some information about how atomic clocks work: "The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55 electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz). That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by exactly the same microwaves. We can use this neat fact to keep a quartz clock to very precise time. "In a cesium atomic clock, there's a quartz oscillator tuned to exactly the same frequency, 9,192,631,770 Hz, which makes microwaves and fires them at a bunch of cesium atoms. If its frequency is correct, and hasn't drifted at all, these microwaves will have exactly the right amount of energy to shift the electrons in the atoms to their higher energy state. A magnetic detector in the clock measures how many atoms are in the higher and lower energy states. If most are in the higher state, it means most have been excited by the waves from the quartz oscillator. And that means those waves are exactly the right frequency, so the quartz oscillator must be telling time correctly. However, if the atoms are mostly in the lower state, it means the oscillator has drifted away from its correct frequency and isn't giving out the right amount of energy to promote electrons in the cesium atoms. A feedback mechanism in the clock detects this and adjusts the frequency of the oscillator so it's correct again. In this way, the quartz oscillator is constantly regulated so it's always exactly set to 9,192,631,770 Hz. An electronic circuit converts this exact frequency into one-per-second pulses that can be used to drive a relatively ordinary quartz clock mechanism with amazing accuracy." Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html "Each caesium atom contains 55 electrons. The last of these normally occupies an orbit which is much further from the nucleus than the rest. In this orbit, its energy can have two slightly different values, depending on a property called the "spin" of the electron. The energy difference between the two states corresponds to radio waves with a frequency of 9192631770 Hz (cycles per second). Atoms in these two states have slightly different magnetic properties." Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20150404181730/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/atomic_clocks.aspx "The percentage of atoms that change their state while passing through the resonator depends on the frequency of the microwave radiation. The more it is in sync with the inherent oscillation frequency of the atoms, the more atoms change their state. "The goal is to perfectly tune the microwave frequency to the oscillation of the atoms, and then measure it. After exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations, a second has passed." Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dc00026-ba88-4db4-b92e-8d612e0243c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and velocities. Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that is constantly changing its tick rate, they either (1) use an average or (2) they use a mathematical model where atomic clocks tick at a constant rate over imaginary routes of different lengths. Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with atomic clocks that are constantly changing their tick rates and can only deal with clocks that tick at a constant rate over different length paths, a few of them have come to believe that the mathematical model with different paths and constant tick rates actually represents reality. These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppbb4g$1lda$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474309 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and > velocities. > > Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that > constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. Of course they can. Good grief. > > Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that > is constantly changing its tick rate, they either (1) use an average or (2) > they use a mathematical model where atomic clocks tick at a constant rate > over imaginary routes of different lengths. > > Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with atomic > clocks that are constantly changing their tick rates and can only deal with > clocks that tick at a constant rate over different length paths, a few of them > have come to believe that the mathematical model with different paths and > constant tick rates actually represents reality. > > These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <634bb607-a301-4706-a962-c5ea7e43b2b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474309 |
Eduardo Del Lago escrito Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and velocities. Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that is constantly changing its tick rate, they either (1) use an average or (2) they use a mathematical model where atomic clocks tick at a constant rate over imaginary routes of different lengths. Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with atomic clocks that are constantly changing their tick rates and can only deal with clocks that tick at a constant rate over different length paths, a few of them have come to believe that the mathematical model with different paths and constant tick rates actually represents reality. These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. Ed HEY FUCKING DUMBASS EdTard.... Post your FUCKING PHYSICS Ph.D M-Kay???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 05:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppc5gf$lms$13@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474309 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and >velocities. >Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. >Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that >is constantly changing its tick rate, they either (1) use an average or (2) >they use a mathematical model where atomic clocks tick at a constant rate >over imaginary routes of different lengths. >Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with atomic >clocks that are constantly changing their tick rates and can only deal with >clocks that tick at a constant rate over different length paths, a few of them >have come to believe that the mathematical model with different paths and >constant tick rates actually represents reality. >These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. Is today Make Up a Fact Day or something?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 14:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <df8eb5d8-7ac2-ad2a-629c-6f78c94062bf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474309 |
Ed Lake wrote: > Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and > velocities. That is NOT a fact, it is *your misconception*. What is different is only the tick rate of the clock as *observed*/*measured* by someone who is *NOT* moving with the clock and/or is *NOT* at the same altitude as the clock. But that is merely a *projection* of what actually happens where the clock is: it continues to tick at its usual rate (because merely that one observer *says* that the clock is moving relative to them cannot physically affect the clock). > Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that > constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. That is NOT a fact; it is your *fantasy*, because you have *no clue* about mathematics and mathematicians (and physics and physicists). In mathematics (and physics) we calculate such things all the time with integration (the second part of calculus; the first one is differentiation). The integral sign ∫ has NOT by a coincidence a form like the letter “S”, because it is just an elaborate *sum*, and the integrand multiplied with the differential is an expression for the respective summand. This is most self-evident when considering that the definite integral of a function from including the left boundary of an interval to including its right boundary gives the area under the curve of the function in that interval: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral#Interpretations_of_the_integral> > Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock > […] Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with > atomic clocks […] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance> Ex falso quodlibet. > These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. Perhaps to the insane, like you. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <616c8a1b-c4dc-48ba-b4c3-d584ee5fa454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474352 |
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 14:51:47 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > Fact #1: Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and > > velocities. > > That is NOT a fact, it is *your misconception*. What is different is only > the tick rate of the clock as *observed*/*measured* by someone who is *NOT* > moving with the clock and/or is *NOT* at the same altitude as the clock. > But that is merely a *projection* of what actually happens where the clock > is: it continues to tick at its usual rate (because merely that one observer > *says* that the clock is moving relative to them cannot physically affect > the clock). Unfortunately, this bullshit is just your misconception. > > > Fact #2: Mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock that > > constantly changes its tick rate depending upon altitude and velocity. > > That is NOT a fact; it is your *fantasy*, because you have *no clue* about > mathematics and mathematicians (and physics and physicists). > > In mathematics (and physics) we calculate such things all the time with > integration (the second part of calculus; the first one is differentiation). > The integral sign ∫ has NOT by a coincidence a form like the letter “S”, > because it is just an elaborate *sum*, and the integrand multiplied with the > differential is an expression for the respective summand. > > This is most self-evident when considering that the definite integral of a > function from including the left boundary of an interval to including its > right boundary gives the area under the curve of the function in that interval: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral#Interpretations_of_the_integral> > > > Fact #3: Because mathematicians cannot compute elapsed times for a clock > > […] Fact #4: It seems clear that because mathematicians cannot cope with > > atomic clocks […] > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance> > > Ex falso quodlibet. > > > These facts were made clear in discussions on this forum today. > > Perhaps to the insane, like you. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web