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 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 10:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0JYvD.14686$vf.8981@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #474691 |
Den 11.10.2018 22.50, skrev Ed Lake: > > You clearly have no idea how cesium atomic clocks work. Here are the steps: > > 1. Cesium is a liquid at room temperature, so the liquid is heated in an > "oven" which turns the liquid into a gas. The gas consists of atoms that > are half negatively charged AND half positively charged. The gas is then > ejected as a stream of individual atoms into the next part of the clock. > > 2. A pair of magnets separates the positively charged atoms from the negatively > charged atoms. The positive atoms are sent to an absorber. The negative atoms > continue on into the "Microwave interrogation cavity." > > 3. Inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity," the negatively charged atoms > are bombarded with microwave photons oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hertz. > Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively > charged atom. If everything is "normal," all the atoms will be changed to > positive charged atoms. One question, Ed: Do you really think that the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon can ionise a Cs atom? (I know. You don't understand the question.) > > 4. The atoms then exit the "Microwave interrogation cavity" and pass between > two more magnets. This magnets direct all atoms that are STILL NEGATIVELY > CHARGED into an absorber, and the positively charge atoms continue on. > > 5. The positively charged atoms hit a DETECTOR which counts them. If the > detector counts FEWER atoms than expected, that means that too many atoms > were NOT changed to positive inside the "cavity." Too many atoms remained > negatively charged and went into the absorber. > > 6. A feedback mechanism then adjusts the microwave photon emitter to a higher > or lower frequency, i.e., to 9,192,631,771 Hz or to 9,192,631,769 Hz. Let's > assume it is to the higher frequency. > > 7. Inside the cavity the microwave photon emitter then begins bombarding > atoms with photons that now oscillate with the higher frequency. If that > doesn't cause the right number of atoms to hit the detector, further > adjustments are made until the right number of negative atoms are changed > to positive atoms. > > 8. If the frequency that resulted in the right number of atom conversions is > 9,192,631,771 Hz., that means the length of a second must be SHORTENED for > the clock. The feedback system adjusts the length of a second to be one > tick less than previously. The clock then still measures 9,192,631,770 > "ticks" as being "one second" but that second is now 1 tick shorter than it > was previously. > > If the clock is being lifted to the top of a mountain, the clock will > constantly shorten the length of a second to keep the length of a second > to be a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 ticks. > > That is why, when the clock is at the top of the mountain, it will TICK > FASTER than an identical clock at the bottom of the mountain. > > Ed > What a beautiful demonstration of your ignorance of elementary physics. You don't even know the difference between ionization and spin reversal! Your ability to stay ignorant about your own ignorance is breath taking! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4afa794b-00cc-4437-91b3-44ba9b767bd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474730 |
On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:13:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 11.10.2018 22.50, skrev Ed Lake: > > > > You clearly have no idea how cesium atomic clocks work. Here are the steps: > > > > 1. Cesium is a liquid at room temperature, so the liquid is heated in an > > "oven" which turns the liquid into a gas. The gas consists of atoms that > > are half negatively charged AND half positively charged. The gas is then > > ejected as a stream of individual atoms into the next part of the clock. > > > > 2. A pair of magnets separates the positively charged atoms from the negatively > > charged atoms. The positive atoms are sent to an absorber. The negative atoms > > continue on into the "Microwave interrogation cavity." > > > > 3. Inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity," the negatively charged atoms > > are bombarded with microwave photons oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hertz. > > Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively > > charged atom. If everything is "normal," all the atoms will be changed to > > positive charged atoms. > > One question, Ed: > Do you really think that the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon > can ionise a Cs atom? Of course not. In order for that to happen, the photon would have to knock the outermost electron loose from the atom. If the atom is missing an electron, it is an "ionized atom." That doesn't happen in an atomic clock. All that happens is that the outermost electron changes it "hyperfine state," which means that it flips its orbit and orbits or spins in the opposite direction. > > (I know. You don't understand the question.) How do you "know" that? Shouldn't you have written "I BELIEVE you don't understand the question"? > > > > > 4. The atoms then exit the "Microwave interrogation cavity" and pass between > > two more magnets. This magnets direct all atoms that are STILL NEGATIVELY > > CHARGED into an absorber, and the positively charge atoms continue on. > > > > 5. The positively charged atoms hit a DETECTOR which counts them. If the > > detector counts FEWER atoms than expected, that means that too many atoms > > were NOT changed to positive inside the "cavity." Too many atoms remained > > negatively charged and went into the absorber. > > > > 6. A feedback mechanism then adjusts the microwave photon emitter to a higher > > or lower frequency, i.e., to 9,192,631,771 Hz or to 9,192,631,769 Hz. Let's > > assume it is to the higher frequency. > > > > 7. Inside the cavity the microwave photon emitter then begins bombarding > > atoms with photons that now oscillate with the higher frequency. If that > > doesn't cause the right number of atoms to hit the detector, further > > adjustments are made until the right number of negative atoms are changed > > to positive atoms. > > > > 8. If the frequency that resulted in the right number of atom conversions is > > 9,192,631,771 Hz., that means the length of a second must be SHORTENED for > > the clock. The feedback system adjusts the length of a second to be one > > tick less than previously. The clock then still measures 9,192,631,770 > > "ticks" as being "one second" but that second is now 1 tick shorter than it > > was previously. > > > > If the clock is being lifted to the top of a mountain, the clock will > > constantly shorten the length of a second to keep the length of a second > > to be a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 ticks. > > > > That is why, when the clock is at the top of the mountain, it will TICK > > FASTER than an identical clock at the bottom of the mountain. > > > > Ed > > > > What a beautiful demonstration of your ignorance of > elementary physics. > > You don't even know the difference between ionization > and spin reversal! > > Your ability to stay ignorant about your own ignorance is breath taking! You BELIEVE something, so you KNOW it must be true. Your ability to stay ignorant about your own ignorance is breathtaking! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppqqug$mjc$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474745 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:13:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 11.10.2018 22.50, skrev Ed Lake: >> > >> > You clearly have no idea how cesium atomic clocks work. Here are the steps: >> > >> > 1. Cesium is a liquid at room temperature, so the liquid is heated in an >> > "oven" which turns the liquid into a gas. The gas consists of atoms that >> > are half negatively charged AND half positively charged. The gas is then >> > ejected as a stream of individual atoms into the next part of the clock. >> > >> > 2. A pair of magnets separates the positively charged atoms from the negatively >> > charged atoms. The positive atoms are sent to an absorber. The negative atoms >> > continue on into the "Microwave interrogation cavity." >> > >> > 3. Inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity," the negatively charged atoms >> > are bombarded with microwave photons oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hertz. >> > Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively >> > charged atom. If everything is "normal," all the atoms will be changed to >> > positive charged atoms. >> >> One question, Ed: >> Do you really think that the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon >> can ionise a Cs atom? >Of course not. In order for that to happen, the photon would have to knock >the outermost electron loose from the atom. If the atom is missing an electron, >it is an "ionized atom." What you wrote would have the photon knock out not just ONE, but TWO electrons, to change a Cs atom from negative to positive! >That doesn't happen in an atomic clock. So why did you write the CRAP about "The gas consists of atoms that are half negatively charged AND half positively charged." and "Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively charged atom. If everything is 'normal,' all the atoms will be changed to positive charged atoms." Is it because you don't UNDERSTAND what is happening, and you wrote what you MISUNDERSTOOD rather than try to learn what really happens? > All that happens is that the outermost >electron changes it "hyperfine state," which means that it flips its orbit >and orbits or spins in the opposite direction. So I guess you learned your mistake about the charged Cs atoms! >> (I know. You don't understand the question.) >How do you "know" that? Shouldn't you have written "I BELIEVE you don't >understand the question"? From his experience? >> What a beautiful demonstration of your ignorance of >> elementary physics. >> >> You don't even know the difference between ionization >> and spin reversal! >> >> Your ability to stay ignorant about your own ignorance is breath taking! >You BELIEVE something, so you KNOW it must be true. Perfect description of yourself, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13f2ed00-b52b-483b-9f94-f9fc1c9e4f0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474757 |
On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 1:59:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:13:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 11.10.2018 22.50, skrev Ed Lake: > >> > > >> > You clearly have no idea how cesium atomic clocks work. Here are the steps: > >> > > >> > 1. Cesium is a liquid at room temperature, so the liquid is heated in an > >> > "oven" which turns the liquid into a gas. The gas consists of atoms that > >> > are half negatively charged AND half positively charged. The gas is then > >> > ejected as a stream of individual atoms into the next part of the clock. > >> > > >> > 2. A pair of magnets separates the positively charged atoms from the negatively > >> > charged atoms. The positive atoms are sent to an absorber. The negative atoms > >> > continue on into the "Microwave interrogation cavity." > >> > > >> > 3. Inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity," the negatively charged atoms > >> > are bombarded with microwave photons oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hertz. > >> > Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively > >> > charged atom. If everything is "normal," all the atoms will be changed to > >> > positive charged atoms. > >> > >> One question, Ed: > >> Do you really think that the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon > >> can ionise a Cs atom? > > >Of course not. In order for that to happen, the photon would have to knock > >the outermost electron loose from the atom. If the atom is missing an electron, > >it is an "ionized atom." > > What you wrote would have the photon knock out not just ONE, but TWO > electrons, to change a Cs atom from negative to positive! The photon causes the outermost electron to "flip" its orbit, like flipping a pancake. The electron travels in the opposite direction around the nucleus. > > >That doesn't happen in an atomic clock. > > So why did you write the CRAP about "The gas consists of atoms that are > half negatively charged AND half positively charged." and "Every atom hit > by photons at that frequency will change into a positively charged atom. > If everything is 'normal,' all the atoms will be changed to positive > charged atoms." > > Is it because you don't UNDERSTAND what is happening, and you wrote what > you MISUNDERSTOOD rather than try to learn what really happens? I think I may have used "positively charged" in the wrong way. The atoms are separated by MAGNETS because they have different "charges." Or should I have written that they have different "polarities?" The papers are all very vague about the difference between the atoms that are allowed to pass and the atoms that go into the absorber. The only thing they agree on is that making the change is the same as "the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." I'm trying to describe the difference between one "hyperfine level" and the other "hyperfine level" when the difference can be determined by using different ends of a bar magnet to sort them out. < Snip more OPINION CRAP > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5EiwD.70669$vX1.7153@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #474745 |
Den 12.10.2018 17.38, skrev Ed Lake: > On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:13:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 11.10.2018 22.50, skrev Ed Lake: >>> >>> You clearly have no idea how cesium atomic clocks work. Here are the steps: >>> >>> 1. Cesium is a liquid at room temperature, so the liquid is heated in an >>> "oven" which turns the liquid into a gas. The gas consists of atoms that >>> are half negatively charged AND half positively charged. The gas is then >>> ejected as a stream of individual atoms into the next part of the clock. >>> >>> 2. A pair of magnets separates the positively charged atoms from the negatively >>> charged atoms. The positive atoms are sent to an absorber. The negative atoms >>> continue on into the "Microwave interrogation cavity." >>> >>> 3. Inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity," the negatively charged atoms >>> are bombarded with microwave photons oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hertz. >>> Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively >>> charged atom. If everything is "normal," all the atoms will be changed to >>> positive charged atoms. >> >> One question, Ed: >> Do you really think that the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon >> can ionise a Cs atom? > > Of course not. In order for that to happen, the photon would have to knock > the outermost electron loose from the atom. If the atom is missing an electron, > it is an "ionized atom." > > That doesn't happen in an atomic clock. All that happens is that the outermost > electron changes it "hyperfine state," which means that it flips its orbit > and orbits or spins in the opposite direction. > When you the wrote: "Every atom hit by photons at that frequency will change into a positively charged atom." you did believe that every atom hit by photons with the tiny energy in a 9,192,631,770 Hz photon would be ionised. >> >> (I know. You don't understand the question.) > > How do you "know" that? Shouldn't you have written "I BELIEVE you don't > understand the question"? But you had to look it up. It is however interesting to see that you are able to learn. So now you know that your explanation of how Cs beam atomic clocks work is nonsense. >> >>> >>> 4. The atoms then exit the "Microwave interrogation cavity" and pass between >>> two more magnets. This magnets direct all atoms that are STILL NEGATIVELY >>> CHARGED into an absorber, and the positively charge atoms continue on. >>> >>> 5. The positively charged atoms hit a DETECTOR which counts them. If the >>> detector counts FEWER atoms than expected, that means that too many atoms >>> were NOT changed to positive inside the "cavity." Too many atoms remained >>> negatively charged and went into the absorber. >>> >>> 6. A feedback mechanism then adjusts the microwave photon emitter to a higher >>> or lower frequency, i.e., to 9,192,631,771 Hz or to 9,192,631,769 Hz. Let's >>> assume it is to the higher frequency. >>> >>> 7. Inside the cavity the microwave photon emitter then begins bombarding >>> atoms with photons that now oscillate with the higher frequency. If that >>> doesn't cause the right number of atoms to hit the detector, further >>> adjustments are made until the right number of negative atoms are changed >>> to positive atoms. >>> >>> 8. If the frequency that resulted in the right number of atom conversions is >>> 9,192,631,771 Hz., that means the length of a second must be SHORTENED for >>> the clock. The feedback system adjusts the length of a second to be one >>> tick less than previously. The clock then still measures 9,192,631,770 >>> "ticks" as being "one second" but that second is now 1 tick shorter than it >>> was previously. >>> >>> If the clock is being lifted to the top of a mountain, the clock will >>> constantly shorten the length of a second to keep the length of a second >>> to be a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 ticks. >>> >>> That is why, when the clock is at the top of the mountain, it will TICK >>> FASTER than an identical clock at the bottom of the mountain. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> What a beautiful demonstration of your ignorance of >> elementary physics. >> >> You don't even know the difference between ionization >> and spin reversal! >> >> Your ability to stay ignorant about your own ignorance is breath taking! > > You BELIEVE something, so you KNOW it must be true. Your ability to stay > ignorant about your own ignorance is breathtaking! > > Ed > I KNOW that you didn't know the difference between the between ionization and spin reversal when you wrote what is quoted above. You seemed to have looked it up now. But your later posts in this thread rather indicates that you have quoted it from a source without understanding it. "Magnetic charges" !!! Did you mean magnetic monopoles? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppo9kg$4m4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474670 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >The "relativistic effects" are described starting on page 9: > "In addition to environmental effects that perturb an atom's internal >states and clock frequency, there can be errors in our determination of the >clock atoms' frequency, even when atoms are perturbation free. The most >fundamental of these effects are relativistic shifts, DUE TO THE DIFFERENT >FRAMES OF REFERENCE of the atoms, probing lasers, and other atomic clocks." (added emphasis mine) Exactly. The "clocks always tick a their correct rate" bit only works LOCALLY, the clock is stationary in your frame of reference and their are no gravitational potential effects. It may not be possible to get that EXACTLY true, if even different portions of the clock are in different enough frames. >I see those quotes as directly disagreeing with your BELIEFS. No, that statement exactly agrees with my beliefs. The best example is the cesium clock in the GPS satellites, it would accumulate 38 microseconds/day too much compared to a local ground clock, if we directly sent down the Cs transition frequency and compared them. >> >Another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. >> >> However, what you write conflicts with the design specs of atomic clocks. >See the quote from the NIST paper above. See the design specs of an atomic clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc21a65a-476e-432a-8716-6ac07cbcca8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474687 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >The "relativistic effects" are described starting on page 9: > > > "In addition to environmental effects that perturb an atom's internal > >states and clock frequency, there can be errors in our determination of the > >clock atoms' frequency, even when atoms are perturbation free. The most > >fundamental of these effects are relativistic shifts, DUE TO THE DIFFERENT > >FRAMES OF REFERENCE of the atoms, probing lasers, and other atomic clocks." > > (added emphasis mine) > > Exactly. The "clocks always tick a their correct rate" bit only works > LOCALLY, the clock is stationary in your frame of reference and their are > no gravitational potential effects. It may not be possible to get that > EXACTLY true, if even different portions of the clock are in different > enough frames. > > >I see those quotes as directly disagreeing with your BELIEFS. > > No, that statement exactly agrees with my beliefs. The best example is the > cesium clock in the GPS satellites, it would accumulate 38 microseconds/day > too much compared to a local ground clock, if we directly sent down the > Cs transition frequency and compared them. > > >> >Another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. > >> > >> However, what you write conflicts with the design specs of atomic clocks. > > >See the quote from the NIST paper above. > > See the design specs of an atomic clock. See the description of how an atomic clock works that I just posted in response to a comment from Paparios. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc3a08fa-1680-4f32-a16c-c94574bd07ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474692 |
EdTard prophesied See the description of how an atomic clock works that I just posted in response to a comment from Paparios. Ed Shut the hell up Cretinous Moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 02:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppmcp1$ejo$7@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474607 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > The clocks do not "malfunction" as a result of changes in speed and gravity. > They function the way they are built to function. Atomic clocks are BUILT to > change their tick rates when gravity and velocity changes. No they are not! The ideal clocks of Einstein are perfect clocks. Atomic clocks we have aren't perfect but are pretty damn close. There is NO defect in the clocks that cause them to vary their time! What you describe is a broken clock, not a modern atomic clock. All that bit about those paper writers writing things like "clocks tick slower when near a mass or moving at a high velocity" or "clocks tick faster when further away from a mass" is because TIME is passing at a slower rate. So the clocks, which just measure accumulated passed time, will "tick" slower if you look at it that way. And because less time passed (or time passed at a slower rate, if you insist), the clocks, which just measures time, will display less time. Simple as that. Paparios is correct, you are confusing clocks with time itself. Clocks measure time. Clocks are not time. A car's odometer measures distance. A car's odometer is not distance. A voltmeter measures voltage. A voltmeter is not voltage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c37d3d5-0b3b-461a-aa8f-ef848d65ca15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474631 |
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 04:33:07 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > The clocks do not "malfunction" as a result of changes in speed and gravity. > > They function the way they are built to function. Atomic clocks are BUILT to > > change their tick rates when gravity and velocity changes. > > No they are not! > > The ideal clocks of Einstein are perfect clocks. Atomic clocks we have > aren't perfect but are pretty damn close. Surely they are very close to the perfection: unusable, but matching Holy Postulates of an insane guru. That's a perfection of a fanatic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <747b839b-cc73-4513-a591-602f97d9d7b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474631 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:33:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > > The clocks do not "malfunction" as a result of changes in speed and gravity. > > They function the way they are built to function. Atomic clocks are BUILT to > > change their tick rates when gravity and velocity changes. > > No they are not! > > The ideal clocks of Einstein are perfect clocks. Atomic clocks we have > aren't perfect but are pretty damn close. > > There is NO defect in the clocks that cause them to vary their time! > What you describe is a broken clock, not a modern atomic clock. What I describe is how atomic clocks work. I have dozens of documents which describe how atomic clocks work. They are basically just a standard quartz crystal clock with an "atomic clock" attached. The atomic clock ADJUSTS the quartz crystal clock to agree with the oscillation rate of cesium atoms. It is a "self-adjusting" clock. Raising or lowering a cesium atom will cause its oscillation rate to change (see the Pound-Rebka experiment), and the clock will use its feedback system to adjust to the new rate. > > All that bit about those paper writers writing things like "clocks tick > slower when near a mass or moving at a high velocity" or "clocks tick > faster when further away from a mass" is because TIME is passing at a > slower rate. So the clocks, which just measure accumulated passed time, > will "tick" slower if you look at it that way. And because less time > passed (or time passed at a slower rate, if you insist), the clocks, > which just measures time, will display less time. Simple as that. > > Paparios is correct, you are confusing clocks with time itself. > Clocks measure time. Clocks are not time. A car's odometer measures > distance. A car's odometer is not distance. A voltmeter measures voltage. > A voltmeter is not voltage. You write but you say nothing. You say "clocks are not time," but you do not say WHAT IS TIME. Einstein answered that question. He said time is what is shown by a clock. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3eeb54e-294a-4fe7-81cc-5c5e24c49e10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474601 |
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 18:04:42 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > We use some words and terms which, for someone like you, may appear to be > nonsensical (black hole, time dilation, spin, genetic algorithms, ant colonies, > hot potato, etc. etc.) but we know to what they refer. You use moronic newspeak, as expected from a bunch of fanatic idiots. > "Clocks tick faster", "clocks run slow", "time runs slow", etc., are all > terms we understand refer to the PASSING OF TIME. We are not confused nor > we are mistaken. We know the language!!! You do not know the language!!!! It takes more than some violating common sense "definitions" and "standards" to create a language. You don't have any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b240a51-e401-40de-8654-3b00b1e0c225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474590 |
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 16:39:40 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Physicists KNOW that TIME is affected both by speed and gravity. Fanatic idiots always KNOW. > They have to do for people, like you, who rejects even the smell of a > mathematical equation. Speaking of mathematics and its equations, it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has rejected its oldest, very important part, as its equations didn't want to cooperate with his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0de11ff0-303c-44a3-9b46-b8714aab5051@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474406 |
El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can > be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. > > Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll > respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never > happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to > justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. > > Ed I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if you consider a clock to be like an odometer." It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the one who is older than the brother who made the travel. The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the equation, (see details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57adc3cc-4750-4579-9f3d-6575decff63d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474413 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:55:17 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018, 17:52:56 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 3:32:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > You are just wasting my time. I quote from papers by copying and pasting > > passages, and you claim I am "misquoting." How can you misquote something > > when you just copy and paste it without modification? > > > > If I posted screen shots would you still claim I was misquoting what can > > be seen in the screenshots? I imagine you would. > > > > Your arguments are just plain silly. I'm going to ignore them. I'll > > respond only when you write something worthy of a response. If that never > > happens again, thanks for confirming that you only have silly arguments to > > justify your mistaken beliefs about time and time dilation. > > > > Ed > > I'm back just to correct some other misinterpretations you wrote in your web page: > > You wrote today, regarding a post of mine, the following: > > "This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like > odometers. When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows > fewer miles were traveled. And when you travel a shorter route through > spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed." > > and then, after a couple of figures, you continue with: > > "In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and > the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity. And > therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if > you consider a clock to be like an odometer." > > It may came as a surprise to you that the shortest path through spacetime is not > the shortest trajectory through a graph. Quite the contrary, as the so called > "Twin Paradox" shows, while the traveling twin goes to Proxima Centaury and then > comes back to reunite with his brother, the brother who stayed at Earth is the > one who is older than the brother who made the travel. > > The reason for this strange behavior is due to the geometry of spacetime. In space, the distance between two points is given by the equation, (see details in > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime): > > ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 > > In spacetime, the distance between two point is given (in SR) as: > > ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 > > Note the change of the signs in the space coordinates. > > You then failed to consider how the analogy of the odometer and a clock works. Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <346e6c7a-1fd2-4e97-8ab4-3cb15e5660e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474454 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 16:35:09 UTC+2, Ed Lake wrote: > Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. Bullshit. These morons have REJECTED serious math, Euclidean - because it didn't want to justify their mumble. They only imagine math justifies them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppg3st$4b0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474454 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about >time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. What's wrong with using math and why is it your opinion that math does not represent reality? I can do simple math to track the trajectory of a well hit baseball, does that math not represent the reality of the baseball in flight? I find it very strange that you claim to love physics and hate math, when physics has so much math in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c92e0ca-567a-42b6-8a86-75b6d55409b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474469 |
On Monday, 8 October 2018 19:24:47 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > >time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. > > What's wrong with using math and why is it your opinion that math does not > represent reality? Math? Mike, poor idiot, your idiot guru has REJECTED it, as it didn't want to suport his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac10ad0b-bc14-4167-ae3e-85701b26f5f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474469 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about > >time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. > > What's wrong with using math and why is it your opinion that math does not > represent reality? I can do simple math to track the trajectory of a well > hit baseball, does that math not represent the reality of the baseball in > flight? I wrote "YOUR math does NOT represent reality." You maliciously turn it into a claim that "math does not represent reality." You are just demonstrating that discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You distort everything. > > I find it very strange that you claim to love physics and hate math, when > physics has so much math in it. I do NOT "hate math." That is just something else you made up. I have NO INTEREST in math. I use it when necessary, but it is not anything that I would do just because I "like it." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppgiki$cn1$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474497 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> >Sorry. I'm not a mathematician. Using math to justify your beliefs about >> >time dilation just tells me that your math does NOT represent reality. >> >> What's wrong with using math and why is it your opinion that math does not >> represent reality? I can do simple math to track the trajectory of a well >> hit baseball, does that math not represent the reality of the baseball in >> flight? >I wrote "YOUR math does NOT represent reality." You maliciously turn it into >a claim that "math does not represent reality." You are just demonstrating >that discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You distort everything. First, it is not "YOUR" (paparios') math, it is the math of SR, and of Einstein. Or do you think he made that up? Also I was really responding to the "Using math to justify your beliefs" part. >> I find it very strange that you claim to love physics and hate math, when >> physics has so much math in it. >I do NOT "hate math." That is just something else you made up. I have NO >INTEREST in math. I use it when necessary, but it is not anything that I >would do just because I "like it." OK, but there really is no way to avoid math when doing physics. Like how you threw up your hands when Paparios put some math in here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web