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 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 23:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppbfbm$1rgn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474323 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The stupidest equivalence I ever see. It's about the curvature of >> spacetime, as it been said. > > Shut up as you have no clue what you are talking about. You only > embarrass yourself further. The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) are: > G ≡ R_µν − ½ R g_µν + Λ g_µν = 8π G/c⁴ T_µν Are you blind not seeing the curvature gradient described by that point? Leave me alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a8285dd-0e35-43cf-852e-e6dc99586fdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474320 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escrito Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/6/18 11:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> […] gravity CURVES spacetime, […] >> Please stop saying that. It implies that gravity and spacetime curvature >> are separate things, one influencing the other, which is NOT the case >> according to general relativity (GR). > > Yeah. Gravity _IS_ curvature of spacetime. I would still maintain, as I wrote in the part not quoted, that gravity is just an observable *effect* of the curvature. In terms of equivalence, which could be worded as what the curvature "is", it "is" energy–momentum density. (Locality A) (variance in Bjerknes oscillation Period) (Locatity B) = (Acceleration Of Gravity) & (redshift/blueshift) between A&B https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppa390$1hmv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474227 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/5/18 6:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower >> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since >> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. > > Yes. And this happens WITHOUT a clock ever changing its tick rate; it's > just geometry. bullshit. Geometry is a branch of mathematics. And it can't be known since that date, but much later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c63e671-e4c9-4abc-9db4-a164235c66ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474227 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 6:38:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/5/18 6:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower > > gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since > > Einstein's first GR work in 1915. > > Yes. And this happens WITHOUT a clock ever changing its tick rate; it's > just geometry. Tom, aren't you saying that we can forget reality, where clocks tick at different rates, and just look at the math (geometry) where you can CLAIM that every clock is "at rest" (i.e., stationary) in its own reference frame and therefore ticks at the same rate as every other clock that is IMAGINED TO BE "at rest" in its own reference frame? Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? Doesn't that make math a RELIGION where reality is ignored and is replaced by a BELIEF in the infallibility of mathematics? Doesn't it say that, by just IMAGINING that a clock is "at rest" as it hurtles through space at great velocities, you can MAKE IT TRUE? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RvGdnfv-6djstCTGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #474277 |
On 10/6/18 11:53 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 6:38:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 10/5/18 6:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower >>> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since >>> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. >> >> Yes. And this happens WITHOUT a clock ever changing its tick rate; it's >> just geometry. > > Tom, aren't you saying that we can forget reality, where clocks tick at > different rates, Nope. Because you are WRONG -- there is not one single instance of an experiment showing that identical clocks actually tick at different rates. In EVERY CASE you ignore something essential: either the signals used in the comparison of tick rates, or the different paths through spacetime of the clocks in the comparison of elapsed proper times. The aspects that you ignore are what actually generate the observed differences, not clocks ticking at different rates. > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or appear in valid physical theories. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5be0d49f-161d-44ac-9456-ac548476121e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474312 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 4:30:31 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/6/18 11:53 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 6:38:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 10/5/18 6:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> Yes, we know, GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower > >>> gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since > >>> Einstein's first GR work in 1915. > >> > >> Yes. And this happens WITHOUT a clock ever changing its tick rate; it's > >> just geometry. > > > > Tom, aren't you saying that we can forget reality, where clocks tick at > > different rates, > > Nope. Because you are WRONG -- there is not one single instance of an > experiment showing that identical clocks actually tick at different > rates. In reality, of course, EVERY TIME DILATION experiment shows that identical clocks tick at different rates. That is what the experimenters set out to confirm, and that is what they STATE that they confirmed. You, however, seem to claim that they LYING. Hafele and Keating: "In science, relevant experimental facts supersede theoretical arguments. In an attempt to throw some empirical light on the question of whether macroscopic clocks record time in accordance with the conventional interpretation of Einstein's relativity theory (1), we flew four cesium beam atomic clocks around the world on commercial jet flights, first eastward, then westward. Then we compared the time they recorded during each trip with the corresponding time recorded by the reference atomic time scale at the U.S. Naval Observatory, MEAN(USNO) (2). As was expected from theoretical predictions (1), the flying clocks lost time (AGED SLOWER) during the eastward trip and gained time (aged faster) during the westward trip." Source: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Experiment.pdf The NIST experiment" "Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that CLOCKS RUN MORE SLOWLY near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years." Source: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055 The Geodesy and Metrology experiment: “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 > In EVERY CASE you ignore something essential: either the signals > used in the comparison of tick rates, or the different paths through > spacetime of the clocks in the comparison of elapsed proper times. The > aspects that you ignore are what actually generate the observed > differences, not clocks ticking at different rates. And all the scientists who do the experiments also ignore your "essentials"? I am in full agreement with ALL the experimenters. You seem to claim that you know about some magical "signals" that the experimenters never mention, "signals" which disprove what the experiments say. But you cannot explain how those magical "signals" work. > > > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of > > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? > > You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in > our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some > COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human > constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or > appear in valid physical theories. How do you know "there is not such thing as 'at rest in our real universe'"? But I agree that "at rest" is just an ARBITRARY way of describing a "human construct" where something that is moving is IMAGINED to be "at rest" for mathematical purposes. Can we agree that your BELIEFS are disputed by EVERY SCIENTIST who performs time dilation experiments with clocks? They ALL state very clearly that their clocks RUN SLOW when moving fast and their clocks RUN SLOW when at lower altitudes. You claim that that is untrue. So, do you believe they are LYING, or do you believe they are INCOMPETENT? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppdcl9$1h9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474366 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of=20 >> > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? >> You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in >> our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some >> COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human >> constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or >> appear in valid physical theories. >How do you know "there is not such thing as 'at rest in our real >universe'"? That is part of Special Relativity. It is part of Galilean relativity, Galileo theorized that hundreds of years ago. >But I agree that "at rest" is just an ARBITRARY way of describing a "human >construct" where something that is moving is IMAGINED to be "at rest" for >mathematical purposes. All motion is relative to something. A "something" must be specified. >Can we agree that your BELIEFS are disputed by EVERY SCIENTIST who performs >time dilation experiments with clocks? Ed, Tom Roberts IS ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS. He is not about to disagree with himself! >They ALL state very clearly that their clocks RUN SLOW when moving fast >and their clocks RUN SLOW when at lower altitudes. You claim that that >is untrue. So, do you believe they are LYING, or do you believe they are >INCOMPETENT? As long as you make incorrect assumptions, you'll reach incorrect conclusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <941297ff-2b5e-4934-8518-29585c152c8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474370 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of=20 > >> > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? > > >> You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in > >> our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some > >> COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human > >> constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or > >> appear in valid physical theories. > > >How do you know "there is no such thing as 'at rest in our real > >universe'"? > > That is part of Special Relativity. > It is part of Galilean relativity, Galileo theorized that hundreds of > years ago. So, that makes it true? For hundreds of years scientists believed that the "ether" was stationary (i.e., "at rest"), and all motion was relative to the "ether." Einstein's paper on Special Relativity said that that "ether" is "superfluous" because time and the speed of light can be used to measure relative velocities. The closer a moving clock gets to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for that clock. So, you do not need anything to be "at rest." > > >But I agree that "at rest" is just an ARBITRARY way of describing a "human > >construct" where something that is moving is IMAGINED to be "at rest" for > >mathematical purposes. > > All motion is relative to something. A "something" must be specified. Einstein specified that "something" to be the speed of light. > > >Can we agree that your BELIEFS are disputed by EVERY SCIENTIST who performs > >time dilation experiments with clocks? > > Ed, Tom Roberts IS ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS. He is not about to disagree > with himself! Has he performed time dilation experiments using clocks?! Where have his findings been published?! Tom Roberts certainly DISAGREES with every other scientist who has performed time dilation experiments with clocks. I've quoted from many of them. > > >They ALL state very clearly that their clocks RUN SLOW when moving fast > >and their clocks RUN SLOW when at lower altitudes. You claim that that > >is untrue. So, do you believe they are LYING, or do you believe they are > >INCOMPETENT? > > As long as you make incorrect assumptions, you'll reach incorrect > conclusions. I'm not making any assumptions. I am QUOTING what they say. Tom Roberts is making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppdqgi$hl7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474374 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >> > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of=20 >> >> > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? >> >> >> You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in >> >> our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some >> >> COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human >> >> constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or >> >> appear in valid physical theories. >> >> >How do you know "there is no such thing as 'at rest in our real >> >universe'"? >> >> That is part of Special Relativity. >> It is part of Galilean relativity, Galileo theorized that hundreds of >> years ago. >So, that makes it true? All models are not perfect. The First Postulate implies there can be no preferred frame. No, it has not been proven as absolutely true, only good enough so that Einstein considered it to be true as a postulate for his works. >For hundreds of years scientists believed that the "ether" was stationary >(i.e., "at rest"), and all motion was relative to the "ether." Again, all theories are not perfect. They can be disproven or only good enough within limits. When measuring abilities were good enough the ether idea started to fall apart, then Einstein's SR work treated it as unnecessary, and modern science agrees with it, not old ether theories. >Einstein's paper on Special Relativity said that that "ether" is >"superfluous" because time and the speed of light can be used to measure >relative velocities. No, Einstein derived the Lorentz transform, and in it there is either no ether or the ether is undetectable and has no effect. Either way it is "superfluous". > The closer a moving clock gets to the speed of light, the >slower time will pass for that clock. So, you do not need anything to be >"at rest." "Slower time will pass" compared to what? Time? >> >But I agree that "at rest" is just an ARBITRARY way of describing a "human >> >construct" where something that is moving is IMAGINED to be "at rest" for >> >mathematical purposes. >> >> All motion is relative to something. A "something" must be specified. >Einstein specified that "something" to be the speed of light. No, the "something" was what he called the "stationary" frame in his 1905 work. >> >Can we agree that your BELIEFS are disputed by EVERY SCIENTIST who performs >> >time dilation experiments with clocks? >> >> Ed, Tom Roberts IS ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS. He is not about to disagree >> with himself! >Has he performed time dilation experiments using clocks?! Where have his >findings been published?! Tom can say or not say what he does, but I recall he works in a particle accelerator lab, which is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on SR's work being correct. Every use of a particle accelerator is a time dilation experiment. >Tom Roberts certainly DISAGREES with every other scientist who has performed >time dilation experiments with clocks. I've quoted from many of them. No, he disagrees with your MISINTERPRETATION of those experiments. >> >They ALL state very clearly that their clocks RUN SLOW when moving fast >> >and their clocks RUN SLOW when at lower altitudes. You claim that that >> >is untrue. So, do you believe they are LYING, or do you believe they are >> >INCOMPETENT? >> >> As long as you make incorrect assumptions, you'll reach incorrect >> conclusions. >I'm not making any assumptions. You most certainly are! You have lots of opinions that you write here as if they were facts. > I am QUOTING what they say. You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > Tom Roberts is >making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, >or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. It is you who is making the assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90b62adc-95d7-4c9b-83fc-885d8c40b634@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474399 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> >> > Do you really BELIEVE that by CLAIMING an object is "at rest" in its frame of=20 > >> >> > reference it is TRULY "at rest" in our real universe? > >> > >> >> You clearly do not understand that there is no such thing as "at rest in > >> >> our real universe". The only meaning of "at rest" is relative to some > >> >> COORDINATE SYSTEM -- since coordinate systems are ARBITRARY human > >> >> constructs, being "at rest" can have no real, physical consequences, or > >> >> appear in valid physical theories. > >> > >> >How do you know "there is no such thing as 'at rest in our real > >> >universe'"? > >> > >> That is part of Special Relativity. > >> It is part of Galilean relativity, Galileo theorized that hundreds of > >> years ago. > > >So, that makes it true? > > All models are not perfect. The First Postulate implies there can be no > preferred frame. No, it has not been proven as absolutely true, only good > enough so that Einstein considered it to be true as a postulate for his > works. > > >For hundreds of years scientists believed that the "ether" was stationary > >(i.e., "at rest"), and all motion was relative to the "ether." > > Again, all theories are not perfect. They can be disproven or only > good enough within limits. When measuring abilities were good enough > the ether idea started to fall apart, then Einstein's SR work treated it > as unnecessary, and modern science agrees with it, not old ether theories. > > >Einstein's paper on Special Relativity said that that "ether" is > >"superfluous" because time and the speed of light can be used to measure > >relative velocities. > > No, Einstein derived the Lorentz transform, and in it there is either no > ether or the ether is undetectable and has no effect. Either way it is > "superfluous". > > > The closer a moving clock gets to the speed of light, the > >slower time will pass for that clock. So, you do not need anything to be > >"at rest." > > "Slower time will pass" compared to what? Time? > > >> >But I agree that "at rest" is just an ARBITRARY way of describing a "human > >> >construct" where something that is moving is IMAGINED to be "at rest" for > >> >mathematical purposes. > >> > >> All motion is relative to something. A "something" must be specified. > > >Einstein specified that "something" to be the speed of light. > > No, the "something" was what he called the "stationary" frame in his 1905 > work. > > >> >Can we agree that your BELIEFS are disputed by EVERY SCIENTIST who performs > >> >time dilation experiments with clocks? > >> > >> Ed, Tom Roberts IS ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS. He is not about to disagree > >> with himself! > > >Has he performed time dilation experiments using clocks?! Where have his > >findings been published?! > > Tom can say or not say what he does, but I recall he works in a particle > accelerator lab, which is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on SR's work being correct. > Every use of a particle accelerator is a time dilation experiment. > > >Tom Roberts certainly DISAGREES with every other scientist who has performed > >time dilation experiments with clocks. I've quoted from many of them. > > No, he disagrees with your MISINTERPRETATION of those experiments. > > >> >They ALL state very clearly that their clocks RUN SLOW when moving fast > >> >and their clocks RUN SLOW when at lower altitudes. You claim that that > >> >is untrue. So, do you believe they are LYING, or do you believe they are > >> >INCOMPETENT? > >> > >> As long as you make incorrect assumptions, you'll reach incorrect > >> conclusions. > > >I'm not making any assumptions. > > You most certainly are! You have lots of opinions that you write here as > if they were facts. > > > I am QUOTING what they say. > > You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > > > Tom Roberts is > >making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, > >or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. > > It is you who is making the assumptions. You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something when you just copy and paste it without modification? If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppdtvb$fv7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474406 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". >> >> > Tom Roberts is >> >making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, >> >or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. >> >> It is you who is making the assumptions. >You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >when you just copy and paste it without modification? You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. Thanks for the correction!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppe0du$6ll$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474412 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". >>> >>>> Tom Roberts is >>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, >>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. >>> >>> It is you who is making the assumptions. > >> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >> when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > > You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. > > Thanks for the correction! > It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6f3e4a7-fb3b-49f0-8574-a63af4080ca7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474414 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 00:13:22 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > >>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > >>> > >>>> Tom Roberts is > >>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, > >>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. > >>> > >>> It is you who is making the assumptions. > > > >> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >> when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > > > You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > > > > You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > > a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. > > > > Thanks for the correction! > > > > It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and > have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. And only the idiot woodworker knows, what is the author's point, because he is soooo wise woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppfll7$moq$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474442 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Monday, 8 October 2018 00:13:22 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: >>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >>> >>>>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". >>>>> >>>>>> Tom Roberts is >>>>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, >>>>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. >>>>> >>>>> It is you who is making the assumptions. >>> >>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? >>> >>> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. >>> >>> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with >>> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. >>> >>> Thanks for the correction! >>> >> >> It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and >> have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. > > And only the idiot woodworker knows, what is the author's > point, because he is soooo wise woodworker. > No, it doesn’t take wisdom. It just takes avoiding the stupidity of copying out of context. Good grief, you have the wits of a week-old smoked turkey leg. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39f8640c-1f87-49f9-92cd-25b04226a633@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474445 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 15:21:46 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, 8 October 2018 00:13:22 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > >>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>> > >>>>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tom Roberts is > >>>>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, > >>>>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is you who is making the assumptions. > >>> > >>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? > >>> > >>> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > >>> > >>> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > >>> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the correction! > >>> > >> > >> It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and > >> have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. > > > > And only the idiot woodworker knows, what is the author's > > point, because he is soooo wise woodworker. > > > > No, it doesn’t take wisdom. Surely not. Being an unerring oracle of what they say, what they mean and how it should be interpreted is an obvious, natural property of any idiot woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppfmnk$oqq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474447 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Monday, 8 October 2018 15:21:46 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Monday, 8 October 2018 00:13:22 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: >>>>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts is >>>>>>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, >>>>>>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is you who is making the assumptions. >>>>> >>>>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >>>>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >>>>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? >>>>> >>>>> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. >>>>> >>>>> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with >>>>> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the correction! >>>>> >>>> >>>> It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and >>>> have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. >>> >>> And only the idiot woodworker knows, what is the author's >>> point, because he is soooo wise woodworker. >>> >> >> No, it doesn’t take wisdom. > > Surely not. Being an unerring oracle of > what they say, what they mean and how it > should be interpreted is an obvious, > natural property of any idiot woodworker. > > The thing about reading is that it’s easy. Children learn how to do it before they can tie shoes. I think it would be useful in your case not to assume that everyone is at the same level of incompetence as you. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe3d5a1e-4e8a-42a3-981a-0aa53a6c29c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474448 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 15:40:07 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, 8 October 2018 15:21:46 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Monday, 8 October 2018 00:13:22 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > >>>>> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts is > >>>>>>>> making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, > >>>>>>>> or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is you who is making the assumptions. > >>>>> > >>>>>> You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >>>>>> passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >>>>>> when you just copy and paste it without modification? > >>>>> > >>>>> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > >>>>> > >>>>> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > >>>>> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the correction! > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It’s a fairly simple exercise to copy something exactly out if context and > >>>> have it appear to mean exactly the opposite of the author’s point. > >>> > >>> And only the idiot woodworker knows, what is the author's > >>> point, because he is soooo wise woodworker. > >>> > >> > >> No, it doesn’t take wisdom. > > > > Surely not. Being an unerring oracle of > > what they say, what they mean and how it > > should be interpreted is an obvious, > > natural property of any idiot woodworker. > > > > > > The thing about reading is that it’s easy. Children learn how to do it > before they can tie shoes. But, obviously, only the idiot woodworker is unerring when it comes to the interpretation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd5893ab-fe84-46a3-a4b1-69559017660c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474412 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> You misspelled "MISQUOTING". > >> > >> > Tom Roberts is > >> >making assumptions if he ASSUMES that they do not really mean what they say, > >> >or if he ASSUMES that they are incompetent or lying. > >> > >> It is you who is making the assumptions. > > >You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > > You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. I have a lot of quotes from time dilation experimenters on my web page here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html I don't see how those quotes can be misinterpreted. They are all very clearly just variations on what one experimenter wrote: "According to Einstein, fast-moving clocks run slow (special relativity), and high-elevation clocks run fast (general relativity)." I'm looking for documents which support your "goofy" beliefs. Can you cite ANY scientific paper or book which claims that clocks do NOT change their tick rates when their altitude or velocity changes? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppg3m9$4b0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474453 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting >> >passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something >> >when you just copy and paste it without modification? >> >> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. >> >> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with >> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. >I don't see how those quotes can be misinterpreted. Of course you can't. You are a fine example of 'Idée fixe' which I mentioned earlier. You have some incorrect ideas welded into your mind which you obsess over, and any reference that counters them will be subconsciously twisted in a way to become irrelevant or actually support it. For you the best example is claiming Einstein's 1905 SR paper, which discusses relative motion and time dilation, you have Einstein somehow saying the exact opposite of what he says and what every scientist over the last 100 years understanded/understands. Also your opinion of what the First Postulate states, since as Einstein used it counters your absolute speed idea. >I'm looking for documents which support your "goofy" beliefs. Can you >cite ANY scientific paper or book which claims that clocks do NOT change >their tick rates when their altitude or velocity changes? Velocity: Einstein's 1905 SR paper and his followups. Altitude: Einstein's 1915 GR paper and his followups. But you have already misinterpreted what they say (and your idée fixe) prevents you from ever seeing that or understanding what he said).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3816949f-21c7-41ca-a180-8f09abec40dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474468 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >> >You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > >> >passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > >> >when you just copy and paste it without modification? > >> > >> You are correct. I should have written "misinterpreting" not misquoting. > >> > >> You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with > >> a completely goofy claim about what the quote means. > > >I don't see how those quotes can be misinterpreted. > > Of course you can't. You are a fine example of 'Idée fixe' which I > mentioned earlier. You have some incorrect ideas welded into your mind > which you obsess over, and any reference that counters them will be > subconsciously twisted in a way to become irrelevant or actually support > it. For you the best example is claiming Einstein's 1905 SR paper, which > discusses relative motion and time dilation, you have Einstein somehow > saying the exact opposite of what he says and what every scientist over > the last 100 years understanded/understands. Also your opinion of what > the First Postulate states, since as Einstein used it counters your > absolute speed idea. So, you claim that when 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." What they really mean is, "Scientists have always know that time passes at the same rate at all altitudes - so Einstein theories changed nothing and doing measurements by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket serves no purpose except to give scientists something to lie about." And when this was printed in the Washington Post, "By comparing the tick rate of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers showed that the altitude difference between the two locations was about 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet. Their work was published in Nature Physics." What they really meant to say was, "By comparing the tick rate of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers found no difference. So, they just made up some phony numbers and maliciously published those numbers in Nature Physics to confuse people." Hmm. You really believe that? I find it preposterous. > >I'm looking for documents which support your "goofy" beliefs. Can you > >cite ANY scientific paper or book which claims that clocks do NOT change > >their tick rates when their altitude or velocity changes? > > Velocity: Einstein's 1905 SR paper and his followups. > Altitude: Einstein's 1915 GR paper and his followups. > > But you have already misinterpreted what they say (and your idée fixe) > prevents you from ever seeing that or understanding what he said). You are wasting my time by turning everything into an opinion-vs-opinion argument. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web