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 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppgi89$cn1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474496 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >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." No, I'd say it is poorly worded by being dumbed down. It really should state that more time passes rather time passing faster. But that would confuse many people. Normally dumbing down not a problem but you take it literally and from that you came up with your cesium atom changing frequency yet somehow not violating the PoR. >And when this was printed in the Washington Post, The Washington Post is a scientific reference now? Repeat the same about dumbing down, but so many Washington Post readers are politicians so more dumbing down is necessary... :-) >Hmm. You really believe that? I find it preposterous. Again you misinterpret lots of stuff. >> >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. You need to admit to yourself that so many of your opinions are wrong, or at least realize your opinions are opinions rather than state them as the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54c0a591-0d29-43c5-899b-a849b2fc0ca9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474506 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >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." > > No, I'd say it is poorly worded by being dumbed down. It really should > state that more time passes rather time passing faster. But that would > confuse many people. > > Normally dumbing down not a problem but you take it literally and from > that you came up with your cesium atom changing frequency yet somehow not > violating the PoR. > > >And when this was printed in the Washington Post, > > The Washington Post is a scientific reference now? > > Repeat the same about dumbing down, but so many Washington Post readers > are politicians so more dumbing down is necessary... :-) > > >Hmm. You really believe that? I find it preposterous. > > Again you misinterpret lots of stuff. > > >> >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. > > You need to admit to yourself that so many of your opinions are wrong, or > at least realize your opinions are opinions rather than state them as > the truth. What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. You CLAIM that when they say just the OPPOSITE of what you believe, they are "dumbing down" the science for some reason. You claim that even in scientific papers they "dumb down" what they mean and write the OPPOSITE of what they mean. And how do you know this? Because you BELIEVE it? Or do you claim superhuman powers and the ability to read minds by looking at what is written in a paper? In a paper written by scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) for the journal SCIENCE, they wrote: "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." The paper: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055 Why would the NIST write in the journal SCIENCE that "Another consequence of Einstein's theory is that CLOCKS RUN MORE SLOWLY near massive objects" if what they mean is something totally different. Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? I fully agree with what they WROTE. You totally DISAGREE with what they WROTE. And you claim I am misunderstanding what they wrote because they didn't MEAN what they wrote. Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? And why would so many OTHER SCIENTISTS do the same thing???? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <753d6857-366f-4d49-9632-ef05e91e8c48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474541 |
Eduardo Del Lago escrito What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c598351-4825-4d89-b88e-ac15d24f7d11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474541 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:12:24 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have > stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. > You CLAIM that when they say just the OPPOSITE... > > And how do you know this? Because you BELIEVE it? ed, we know this, because many of those authors have TOLD YOU that what they wrote doesn't quite mean what they mean. They have told you that they are dumbing down. > Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean > in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? And why would so many OTHER SCIENTISTS do the > same thing???? Seriously? You dont know why??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppirlb$tgq$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474541 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >> >You are wasting my time by turning everything into an opinion-vs-opinion >> >argument. >> You need to admit to yourself that so many of your opinions are wrong, or >> at least realize your opinions are opinions rather than state them as >> the truth. >What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have= >stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. Wrong, you misinterpret what they say, and you are agreeing with your misinterpretation, not what they actually wrote. That is the whole problem. You have some incorrect ideas and you twist what they say to match your idee fixe. You have to remember that an ideal clock keeps perfect time Perfect PROPER time. So if two ideal clocks are in synch and one of them goes off somewhere and returns, and now the two perfect clocks don't agree, the only possibility is that they experienced different amounts of time passage. You are (subconsciously?) locked into a universal time idea so that if two ideal (perfect) clocks return with different time passage values, you assume that the universal time is the same everywhere, so the only possibility is that one of the clocks must have "ticked slower" than the other. That is not what SR/GR say at all. Ideal clocks always tick at the correct rate. >You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. You CLAIM that when they say >just the OPPOSITE of what you believe, they are "dumbing down" the science >for some reason. You claim that even in scientific papers they "dumb down" >what they mean and write the OPPOSITE of what they mean. No, it is you who claim they say the opposite of what they said. >And how do you know this? Because you BELIEVE it? Or do you claim superhuman >powers and the ability to read minds by looking at what is written in a paper? No, I actually read the paper as well as technical stuff that goes into details such as exactly what Einstein meant by ideal clocks and what it means that all clocks tick at their correct rate etc. It is also easy to write "clocks run more slowly" when the actual intent is to write "clocks experience less time", since first, "clocks run more slowly" is the APPARENT effect, it is what the non-local observer SEES. Second, "clocks experience less time" is counterintuitive and most people not experienced with SR/GR will be confused by the term. You have actually caught me a couple of times writing something equivalent to "clocks run more slowly". It is confusing, and that is why you should dig in deep and study what is going on rather than staking a claim and declaring everyone else wrong. I doubt your idee fixe will allow that, however. >Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean >in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? They don't say the opposite. They say something dumbed down that describes the APPARENT effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <011716de-f731-4ea8-86e3-55495981fa13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474555 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 1:22:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> >You are wasting my time by turning everything into an opinion-vs-opinion > >> >argument. > > >> You need to admit to yourself that so many of your opinions are wrong, or > >> at least realize your opinions are opinions rather than state them as > >> the truth. > > >What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have= > >stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > Wrong, you misinterpret what they say, and you are agreeing with your > misinterpretation, not what they actually wrote. That is the whole > problem. You have some incorrect ideas and you twist what they say to > match your idee fixe. Another MORONIC opinion versus opinion argument. > > You have to remember that an ideal clock keeps perfect time Perfect PROPER > time. So if two ideal clocks are in synch and one of them goes off > somewhere and returns, and now the two perfect clocks don't agree, the > only possibility is that they experienced different amounts of time > passage. Correct. > > You are (subconsciously?) locked into a universal time idea so that if two > ideal (perfect) clocks return with different time passage values, you > assume that the universal time is the same everywhere, so the only > possibility is that one of the clocks must have "ticked slower" than the > other. That is not what SR/GR say at all. Ideal clocks always tick at the > correct rate. "Universal time idea"??? I "assume that the universal time is the same everywhere"???? Are you CRAZY?? What the hell is a "universal time idea"? It seems to be something you just pulled out of your butt. I've been endlessly arguing the time is DIFFERENT everywhere, depending upon location and how each location moves through space and how close each location is to a gravitational mass. I.e., I've been arguing EINSTEIN'S THEORY that time passes at different rates virtually EVERYWHERE. > > > >You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. You CLAIM that when they say > >just the OPPOSITE of what you believe, they are "dumbing down" the science > >for some reason. You claim that even in scientific papers they "dumb down" > >what they mean and write the OPPOSITE of what they mean. > > No, it is you who claim they say the opposite of what they said. You claim that clocks do NOT run slow. A scientific article says exactly what I say, "A clock will run faster the higher it is, and it will run slower the faster it moves." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120315002550/http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/1981papers/Vol%2013_37.pdf "Clocks do not run slow" is the OPPOSITE of "clocks run slow." > > >And how do you know this? Because you BELIEVE it? Or do you claim superhuman > >powers and the ability to read minds by looking at what is written in a paper? > > No, I actually read the paper as well as technical stuff that goes into > details such as exactly what Einstein meant by ideal clocks and what it > means that all clocks tick at their correct rate etc. > > It is also easy to write "clocks run more slowly" when the actual intent > is to write "clocks experience less time", since first, "clocks run more > slowly" is the APPARENT effect, it is what the non-local observer SEES. > Second, "clocks experience less time" is counterintuitive and most people > not experienced with SR/GR will be confused by the term. Even scientists? A Google search for the term "clocks experience less time" finds NO RESULTS. It appears that term was never used before on the Internet. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=XxS9W4rrO6S_jwS5n7_ACg&q=%22clocks+experience+less+time%22 A Google scholar search gets the same results (indicating it has never been used in a scientific paper). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=%22clocks+experience+less+time%22&btnG= > > You have actually caught me a couple of times writing something equivalent > to "clocks run more slowly". It is confusing, and that is why you should > dig in deep and study what is going on rather than staking a claim and > declaring everyone else wrong. I doubt your idee fixe will allow that, > however. > > >Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean > >in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? > > They don't say the opposite. They say something dumbed down that describes > the APPARENT effect. You haven't answered the question: Why would they "dumb down" things in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL???? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d756898-7154-43ac-8f18-feb24b3fb6cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474555 |
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 20:22:38 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > >> >You are wasting my time by turning everything into an opinion-vs-opinion > >> >argument. > > >> You need to admit to yourself that so many of your opinions are wrong, or > >> at least realize your opinions are opinions rather than state them as > >> the truth. > > >What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have= > >stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > Wrong, you misinterpret what they say, and you are agreeing with your > misinterpretation, not what they actually wrote. That is the whole > problem. You have some incorrect ideas and you twist what they say to > match your idee fixe. > > You have to remember that an ideal clock keeps perfect time Perfect PROPER > time. You have to remember that ideal is whatever Great Guru says to be ideal, proper is whatever Great Guru says to be proper, perfect is whatever Great Guru says to be perfect and so on. It doesn't have to work or anything. It just have to match the dogmas of this moronic cult. > It is also easy to write "clocks run more slowly" when the actual intent > is to write "clocks experience less time", since first, "clocks run more > slowly" is the APPARENT effect, it is what the non-local observer SEES. > Second, "clocks experience less time" is counterintuitive and most people > not experienced with SR/GR will be confused by the term. > > You have actually caught me a couple of times writing something equivalent > to "clocks run more slowly". It is confusing, and that is why you should > dig in deep and study what is going on rather than staking a claim and > declaring everyone else wrong. I doubt your idee fixe will allow that, > however. Don't worry that The Shit's followers are a bunch of idiots unable to put 3 sentences together without denying themself. Let The Shit brainwash you, and become one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0f3f8e2-65b6-4293-ac2a-a25bacbcd496@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474541 |
El martes, 9 de octubre de 2018, 11:12:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have > stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > Do you? > You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. You CLAIM that when they say > just the OPPOSITE of what you believe, they are "dumbing down" the science > for some reason. You claim that even in scientific papers they "dumb down" > what they mean and write the OPPOSITE of what they mean. > Physicists KNOW that TIME is affected both by speed and gravity. They also KNOW that accurate clocks can MEASURE the passing of TIME. Clocks MEASURE the passing of time. If time changes, accurate clocks will report that change in their readings. It is time what, according to Einstein theories, changes. Clocks only reflect those changes. Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of Nature. > Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean > in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? And why would so many OTHER SCIENTISTS do the > same thing???? > > Ed They have to do for people, like you, who rejects even the smell of a mathematical equation. But the real fact is that everyone who understand relativity knows that "clocks run slow" and "time runs slow" are words dealing with the fundamental concept of TIME and not to the malfunctioning of clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5dfd166-5e9e-40d8-931e-5170f5c55dc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474590 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 9 de octubre de 2018, 11:12:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have > > stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > > > Do you? YES. When Hafele and Keating conclude, "There seems to be little basis for further arguments about whether clocks will indicate the same time after a round trip, for we find that they do not," I fully agree. The paper: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Experiment.pdf When NIST scientists write, "Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects," I fully agree. The paper: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055 When C. O. Alley of the University of Maryland repeats part of the Hafele- Keating experiment and writes, "A clock will run faster the higher it is, and it will run slower the faster it moves," I agree. It's on page 703 of this document: https://web.archive.org/web/20120315002550/http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/1981papers/Vol%2013_37.pdf When Japanese scientists perform gravitational time dilation experiments and write, "According to the theory of general relativity, the gravitational red shift causes a clock placed at a lower altitude, where gravity is strong, to run more slowly than a clock placed at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker," I agree. The paper: http://www.nict.go.jp/publication/shuppan/kihou-journal/journal-vol50no1.2/050601.pdf When Christian Lisdat, co-author of the Geodesy and Metrology study and a physicist at Germany’s National Meteorology Institute says, "Time passes with different speeds depending how far you are away from large masses,” I agree. Source: https://www.newsweek.com/portable-atomic-clocks-can-measure-height-mountain-and-it-could-help-805431 When someone CLAIMS that those scientists do not MEAN what they wrote, I just laugh and laugh and laugh at the STUPID things some people claim. > > > You CLAIM that they do not MEAN what they say. You CLAIM that when they say > > just the OPPOSITE of what you believe, they are "dumbing down" the science > > for some reason. You claim that even in scientific papers they "dumb down" > > what they mean and write the OPPOSITE of what they mean. > > > > Physicists KNOW that TIME is affected both by speed and gravity. They also KNOW > that accurate clocks can MEASURE the passing of TIME. > > Clocks MEASURE the passing of time. If time changes, accurate clocks will > report that change in their readings. > > It is time what, according to Einstein theories, changes. Clocks only reflect > those changes. According to Hafele and Keating, " Einstein defined a new empirical basis for time by accepting a definition which states, in effect, that 'time is that which is indicated by a clock'." You can find that definition in Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity: "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of 'time' by substituting 'the position of the small hand of my watch' for 'time.' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located." > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). > > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of > Nature. > > > > Why would they "dumb down" things and say the OPPOSITE of what they mean > > in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL??? And why would so many OTHER SCIENTISTS do the > > same thing???? > > > > Ed > > They have to do for people, like you, who rejects even the smell of a > mathematical equation. > > But the real fact is that everyone who understand relativity knows that > "clocks run slow" and "time runs slow" are words dealing with the fundamental > concept of TIME and not to the malfunctioning of clocks. Do you realize, Paparios, that you are saying that scientists DUMB DOWN their findings when writing for SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS because there might be readers of those SCIENTIFIC journals that do not like dealing with mathematics??? I find such a BELIEF to be totally preposterous. It is one of the most ABSURD BELIEFS I have ever heard of. That is why I list it as #2 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ce49ebf-d2c3-4dd9-9d94-8a1bb9e7f8ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474595 |
El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2018, 12:32:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 9 de octubre de 2018, 11:12:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > > What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have > > > stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > > > > > > Do you? > > YES. When Hafele and Keating conclude, "There seems to be little basis for > further arguments about whether clocks will indicate the same time after a > round trip, for we find that they do not," I fully agree. > > The paper: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Experiment.pdf > > When NIST scientists write, "Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that > clocks run more slowly near massive objects," I fully agree. > > The paper: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055 > > When C. O. Alley of the University of Maryland repeats part of the Hafele- > Keating experiment and writes, "A clock will run faster the higher it is, and > it will run slower the faster it moves," I agree. > > It's on page 703 of this document: https://web.archive.org/web/20120315002550/http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/1981papers/Vol%2013_37.pdf > > When Japanese scientists perform gravitational time dilation experiments and > write, "According to the theory of general relativity, the gravitational red > shift causes a clock placed at a lower altitude, where gravity is strong, to > run more slowly than a clock placed at a higher altitude, where gravity is > weaker," I agree. > > The paper: http://www.nict.go.jp/publication/shuppan/kihou-journal/journal-vol50no1.2/050601.pdf > > When Christian Lisdat, co-author of the Geodesy and Metrology study and a > physicist at Germany’s National Meteorology Institute says, "Time passes with > different speeds depending how far you are away from large masses,” I agree. > > Source: https://www.newsweek.com/portable-atomic-clocks-can-measure-height-mountain-and-it-could-help-805431 > > When someone CLAIMS that those scientists do not MEAN what they wrote, I just > laugh and laugh and laugh at the STUPID things some people claim. > What you are denying (even after confronted to facts) is that all those correct cites write about the effect of speed and gravity ON THE PASSING OF TIME. You are sturbornly believing that something physical changes the internals of clocks (that is speed and gravity make clocks to malfunction). > > > > Physicists KNOW that TIME is affected both by speed and gravity. They also KNOW > > that accurate clocks can MEASURE the passing of TIME. > > > > Clocks MEASURE the passing of time. If time changes, accurate clocks will > > report that change in their readings. > > > > It is time what, according to Einstein theories, changes. Clocks only reflect > > those changes. > > According to Hafele and Keating, " Einstein defined a new empirical basis for > time by accepting a definition which states, in effect, that 'time is that > which is indicated by a clock'." > > You can find that definition in Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity: > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the > definition of 'time' by substituting 'the position of the small hand of my > watch' for 'time.' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are > concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is > located." > Einstein and all physicists up until today used measuring instruments: clocks and rulers. Those instruments measure characteristics of Nature: time and space!!! Clocks ARE NOT TIME and rulers ARE NOT SPACE!!!! Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of Nature. > > But the real fact is that everyone who understand relativity knows that > > "clocks run slow" and "time runs slow" are words dealing with the fundamental > > concept of TIME and not to the malfunctioning of clocks. > > Do you realize, Paparios, that you are saying that scientists DUMB DOWN their > findings when writing for SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS because there might be readers > of those SCIENTIFIC journals that do not like dealing with mathematics??? > Do you not realize that all scientists (including me) use a language which has been developed for over 100 years? 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. "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!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93c718a9-5405-41a0-ae0c-609c676abc7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474601 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2018, 12:32:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El martes, 9 de octubre de 2018, 11:12:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What I am doing is quoting what scientists have written and what they have > > > > stated in the media. I AGREE with what they say. > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > YES. When Hafele and Keating conclude, "There seems to be little basis for > > further arguments about whether clocks will indicate the same time after a > > round trip, for we find that they do not," I fully agree. > > > > The paper: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Experiment.pdf > > > > When NIST scientists write, "Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that > > clocks run more slowly near massive objects," I fully agree. > > > > The paper: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055 > > > > When C. O. Alley of the University of Maryland repeats part of the Hafele- > > Keating experiment and writes, "A clock will run faster the higher it is, and > > it will run slower the faster it moves," I agree. > > > > It's on page 703 of this document: https://web.archive.org/web/20120315002550/http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/1981papers/Vol%2013_37.pdf > > > > When Japanese scientists perform gravitational time dilation experiments and > > write, "According to the theory of general relativity, the gravitational red > > shift causes a clock placed at a lower altitude, where gravity is strong, to > > run more slowly than a clock placed at a higher altitude, where gravity is > > weaker," I agree. > > > > The paper: http://www.nict.go.jp/publication/shuppan/kihou-journal/journal-vol50no1.2/050601.pdf > > > > When Christian Lisdat, co-author of the Geodesy and Metrology study and a > > physicist at Germany’s National Meteorology Institute says, "Time passes with > > different speeds depending how far you are away from large masses,” I agree. > > > > Source: https://www.newsweek.com/portable-atomic-clocks-can-measure-height-mountain-and-it-could-help-805431 > > > > When someone CLAIMS that those scientists do not MEAN what they wrote, I just > > laugh and laugh and laugh at the STUPID things some people claim. > > > > What you are denying (even after confronted to facts) is that all those correct > cites write about the effect of speed and gravity ON THE PASSING OF TIME. You > are sturbornly believing that something physical changes the internals of > clocks (that is speed and gravity make clocks to malfunction). 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. You need to study how atomic clocks work. > > > > > > > > Physicists KNOW that TIME is affected both by speed and gravity. They also KNOW > > > that accurate clocks can MEASURE the passing of TIME. > > > > > > Clocks MEASURE the passing of time. If time changes, accurate clocks will > > > report that change in their readings. > > > > > > It is time what, according to Einstein theories, changes. Clocks only reflect > > > those changes. > > > > According to Hafele and Keating, " Einstein defined a new empirical basis for > > time by accepting a definition which states, in effect, that 'time is that > > which is indicated by a clock'." > > > > You can find that definition in Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity: > > > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the > > definition of 'time' by substituting 'the position of the small hand of my > > watch' for 'time.' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are > > concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is > > located." > > > > Einstein and all physicists up until today used measuring instruments: clocks > and rulers. > > Those instruments measure characteristics of Nature: time and space!!! > > Clocks ARE NOT TIME and rulers ARE NOT SPACE!!!! Clocks are not time, but time is what clocks measure. "Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics "In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement: it is simply what a clock reads." Source: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/ Elsewhere I quoted Einstein and Hafele and Keating as saying the same thing: Time is what a clock measures. PERIOD. > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of > Nature. Time is NOT the same as distance. Comparing them is nonsensical. > > > > > But the real fact is that everyone who understand relativity knows that > > > "clocks run slow" and "time runs slow" are words dealing with the fundamental > > > concept of TIME and not to the malfunctioning of clocks. > > > > Do you realize, Paparios, that you are saying that scientists DUMB DOWN their > > findings when writing for SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS because there might be readers > > of those SCIENTIFIC journals that do not like dealing with mathematics??? > > > > Do you not realize that all scientists (including me) use a language which has > been developed for over 100 years? What I realize is that mathematicians like yourself use a DIFFERENT language than scientists use. And you falsely CLAIM that scientists are saying the same things you are saying when they say just the OPPOSITE of what you are saying. That is why the "clock paradox" debate has been going on for over a HUNDRED YEARS. > > 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. On the contrary. Words have definitions and their meaning can be logically explained. But you use mathematics which disagree with the definitions and you CLAIM the math is correct and the definitions are wrong. Example: Time: That which is measured by clocks. That is EINSTEIN'S DEFINITION. You CLAIM it is wrong. > > "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!!!! You appear to only know mathematics. You appear unable to explain ANYTHING except in mathematical terms. It appears you DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING EXCEPT MATHEMATICS. You appear to have no understanding whatsoever of the SCIENCE of time dilation. But that is my OPINION and I HATE opinion versus opinion arguments. They resolve NOTHING. They are a waste of time. Time and time dilation are BEST explained without any math whatsoever: Time is what is measured by clocks (and by everything that changes with time). Time dilation is CAUSED by changes in gravity and velocity on clocks (and on everything that changes with time). The only debate is what PHYSICALLY CAUSES atomic clocks to change their tick rates. The answer is: Atoms change their oscillation rates when they are moved to different altitudes or travel at different velocities. And atomic clocks are constructed to adjust to those changing oscillation rates. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bab08a31-503c-4a25-b9fd-8c7043a1d849@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474607 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:47:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > Atomic clocks are BUILT to > change their tick rates when gravity and velocity changes. Just not true. You are either massively ignorant or you are a liar. Which is it? > They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the > clock's tick rate when the clock determines that the > oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. Not true. Again, you show your utter ignorance on the subject, or you are a liar and a troll. > You need to study how atomic clocks work. yes YOU do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <affa02c3-2862-4d39-abcc-c1ad6d75b192@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474607 |
El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2018, 13:47:29 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > What you are denying (even after confronted to facts) is that all those correct > > cites write about the effect of speed and gravity ON THE PASSING OF TIME. You > > are sturbornly believing that something physical changes the internals of > > clocks (that is speed and gravity make clocks to malfunction). > > 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the > clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. You have all of this wrong!! Clocks are built to measure the passing of time. Good clocks do this more accurately than bad clocks. The feedback system does nothing of what you assert. The feedback system is used to maximize the number of cesium atoms which reach the detector at the right energy state, which occurs when the frequency of the quartz clock is exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. Again you know near to nothing about how an atomic clock works!!! > > Einstein and all physicists up until today used measuring instruments: clocks > > and rulers. > > > > Those instruments measure characteristics of Nature: time and space!!! > > > > Clocks ARE NOT TIME and rulers ARE NOT SPACE!!!! > > Clocks are not time, but time is what clocks measure. > > "Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads." > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics > > "In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement: it is simply what a clock reads." > Source: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/ > > Elsewhere I quoted Einstein and Hafele and Keating as saying the same thing: > Time is what a clock measures. PERIOD. > You evidently do not know how to read!!! All your references say that CLOCKS MEASURE TIME!!!! > > > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). > > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of > > Nature. > > Time is NOT the same as distance. Comparing them is nonsensical. > Another thing you do not know is logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfad8559-b03a-4c4a-8847-ccf3ec84e054@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474616 |
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 22:29:48 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2018, 13:47:29 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > What you are denying (even after confronted to facts) is that all those correct > > > cites write about the effect of speed and gravity ON THE PASSING OF TIME. You > > > are sturbornly believing that something physical changes the internals of > > > clocks (that is speed and gravity make clocks to malfunction). > > > > 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the > > clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used > > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. > > You have all of this wrong!! Clocks are built to measure the passing of time. Only in the dreams of some idiots imagining incrredible importance of their childish games. In real world clocks are built to coordinate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 07:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0684bec-689d-4b31-8de6-e29eba5a7c31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474616 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:29:48 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2018, 13:47:29 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > What you are denying (even after confronted to facts) is that all those correct > > > cites write about the effect of speed and gravity ON THE PASSING OF TIME. You > > > are sturbornly believing that something physical changes the internals of > > > clocks (that is speed and gravity make clocks to malfunction). > > > > 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the > > clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used > > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. > > You have all of this wrong!! Clocks are built to measure the passing of time. > Good clocks do this more accurately than bad clocks. > > The feedback system does nothing of what you assert. The feedback system is > used to maximize the number of cesium atoms which reach the detector at the > right energy state, which occurs when the frequency of the quartz clock is > exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. Right. But what CAUSES cesium atoms to change their "energy state"? Answer: Raising or lowering the atoms will CAUSE cesium atoms to change their energy state, and so will transporting or moving the atoms. When that happens, the atomic clock adjusts its tick rate to agree with the new altitude or velocity. > > Again you know near to nothing about how an atomic clock works!!! Another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. > > > > > Einstein and all physicists up until today used measuring instruments: clocks > > > and rulers. > > > > > > Those instruments measure characteristics of Nature: time and space!!! > > > > > > Clocks ARE NOT TIME and rulers ARE NOT SPACE!!!! > > > > Clocks are not time, but time is what clocks measure. > > > > "Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads." > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics > > > > "In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement: it is simply what a clock reads." > > Source: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/ > > > > Elsewhere I quoted Einstein and Hafele and Keating as saying the same thing: > > Time is what a clock measures. PERIOD. > > > > You evidently do not know how to read!!! > > All your references say that CLOCKS MEASURE TIME!!!! No, they say that "time is what a clock reads." Note the quotation marks! Clearly you do not know how to read. > > > > > > > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). > > > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of > > > Nature. > > > > Time is NOT the same as distance. Comparing them is nonsensical. > > > > Another thing you do not know is logic. Again you post another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. You are wasting my time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppnp66$66c$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474655 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:29:48 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> > 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the >> > clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used >> > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity. >> You have all of this wrong!! Clocks are built to measure the passing of time. >> Good clocks do this more accurately than bad clocks. >> The feedback system does nothing of what you assert. The feedback system is >> used to maximize the number of cesium atoms which reach the detector at the >> right energy state, which occurs when the frequency of the quartz clock is >> exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. >Right. But what CAUSES cesium atoms to change their "energy state"? Nothing. Cs always has the transition state at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. The oscillator may attempt to drift because of temperature variations, voltage variations etc. The feedback is there to PREVENT the oscillator drift. This is bog standard phase locked loop circuitry. Look it up in a good engineering reference. >Answer: Raising or lowering the atoms will CAUSE cesium atoms to change their >energy state, and so will transporting or moving the atoms. No, it does not. That would violate the first postulate where all laws of physics are the same. >When that happens, the atomic clock adjusts its tick rate to agree with the new >altitude or velocity. Again, violates the first postulate. All I would have to do is to measure the voltage on the PLL feedback offset and I could tell you the altitude or absolute velocity! The first postulate states that is impossible. >> Again you know near to nothing about how an atomic clock works!!! >Another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. However, what you write conflicts with the design specs of atomic clocks. >> > Elsewhere I quoted Einstein and Hafele and Keating as saying the same thing: >> > Time is what a clock measures. PERIOD. >> You evidently do not know how to read!!! >> All your references say that CLOCKS MEASURE TIME!!!! >No, they say that "time is what a clock reads." Note the quotation marks! Meaning that clocks measure time. Einstein famously wrote 'Zeit ist das, was man an der Uhr abliest.' which is usually translated as 'time is what a clock measures' or 'time is what a clock displays.' >> > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances). >> > > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of >> > > Nature. >> > Time is NOT the same as distance. Comparing them is nonsensical. In SR and GR time is another coordinate, like the x y z space coordinates. That is part of what spacetime is. An odometer measures accumulated distance coordinates. A clock measures accumulated time. x y z t are all coordinates in spacetime. The fact the time coordinate is not the same as the x y z distance coordinates is not important. >> Another thing you do not know is logic. >Again you post another moronic opinion versus opinion argument. >You are wasting my time. Yet you come back here for more abuse again and again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4097a5d-6788-492d-84d5-72712015c5d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474663 |
On Thursday, 11 October 2018 17:11:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Nothing. Cs always has the transition state at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash denying reality. Anyone can check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9082b0e-bb07-4b3b-963a-4be2c2d73af0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474663 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:11:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:29:48 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> >> > 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. They have a self-correcting feedback system that adjusts the clock's tick rate when the
> >> > clock determines that the oscillation rate of cesium atomic particles used
> >> > in the clock has changed due to changes in velocity or gravity.
>
> >> You have all of this wrong!! Clocks are built to measure the passing of time.
> >> Good clocks do this more accurately than bad clocks.
>
> >> The feedback system does nothing of what you assert. The feedback system is
> >> used to maximize the number of cesium atoms which reach the detector at the
> >> right energy state, which occurs when the frequency of the quartz clock is
> >> exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz.
>
> >Right. But what CAUSES cesium atoms to change their "energy state"?
>
> Nothing. Cs always has the transition state at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz.
>
> The oscillator may attempt to drift because of temperature variations,
> voltage variations etc. The feedback is there to PREVENT the oscillator
> drift. This is bog standard phase locked loop circuitry. Look it up in a
> good engineering reference.
You posted your message as I was reading a paper written by NIST scientists
that is available on arxiv.org. Here's the link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3493.pdf
It is titled "Optical Atomic Clocks," and it says on page 4:
"As Maxwell realized, an atom can be an ideal frequency standard because,
as far as we know, one atom is exactly identical to another atom of the same
species. Therefore, if we build a device that registers the frequency of a
natural oscillation of an atom, say the mechanical oscillations of an electron
about the atom's core, all such devices will run at exactly the same frequency
(except for relativistic effects discussed below), independent of comparison.
Therefore, the requirement for making an atomic frequency standard is
relatively easy to state: we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an
apparatus that produces an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the
atoms' natural oscillations. Then, to make a clock, we simply count cycles of
the oscillatory signal."
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."
I see those quotes as directly disagreeing with your BELIEFS. But you will
no doubt change it to an opinion versus opinion argument and claim that the
NIST scientists didn't really MEAN what they wrote.
>
> >Answer: Raising or lowering the atoms will CAUSE cesium atoms to change their
> >energy state, and so will transporting or moving the atoms.
>
> No, it does not. That would violate the first postulate where all laws of
> physics are the same.
The first postulate says that the laws of physics are the same in all frames
of reference BUT THE LAWS INCLUDE VARIABLES, AND TIME IS A VARIABLE.
>
> >When that happens, the atomic clock adjusts its tick rate to agree with the new
> >altitude or velocity.
>
> Again, violates the first postulate. All I would have to do is to measure
> the voltage on the PLL feedback offset and I could tell you the altitude
> or absolute velocity! The first postulate states that is impossible.
>
> >> Again you know near to nothing about how an atomic clock works!!!
>
> >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.
>
> >> > Elsewhere I quoted Einstein and Hafele and Keating as saying the same thing:
> >> > Time is what a clock measures. PERIOD.
>
> >> You evidently do not know how to read!!!
>
> >> All your references say that CLOCKS MEASURE TIME!!!!
>
> >No, they say that "time is what a clock reads." Note the quotation marks!
>
> Meaning that clocks measure time.
>
> Einstein famously wrote 'Zeit ist das, was man an der Uhr abliest.' which
> is usually translated as 'time is what a clock measures' or 'time is what
> a clock displays.'
Thanks. That CONFIRMS I am correctly quoting Einstein and you are not.
>
> >> > > Clocks (odometers) show the changes of TIME (distances).
> >> > > Clocks (odometers) are instruments. TIME (distances) are characteristics of
> >> > > Nature.
>
> >> > Time is NOT the same as distance. Comparing them is nonsensical.
>
> In SR and GR time is another coordinate, like the x y z space coordinates.
> That is part of what spacetime is.
>
> An odometer measures accumulated distance coordinates.
>
> A clock measures accumulated time.
>
> x y z t are all coordinates in spacetime. The fact the time coordinate
> is not the same as the x y z distance coordinates is not important.
>
> >> Another thing you do not know is logic.
>
> >Again you post another moronic opinion versus opinion argument.
>
> >You are wasting my time.
>
> Yet you come back here for more abuse again and again.
On rare occasions people here say something worthwhile that is not just
opinion versus opinion. The Einstein quotes in German are a good example.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20955a0c-e6b6-42a2-a513-4dec760c703b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474670 |
El jueves, 11 de octubre de 2018, 13:16:25 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:11:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Nothing. Cs always has the transition state at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > > > The oscillator may attempt to drift because of temperature variations, > > voltage variations etc. The feedback is there to PREVENT the oscillator > > drift. This is bog standard phase locked loop circuitry. Look it up in a > > good engineering reference. > > You posted your message as I was reading a paper written by NIST scientists > that is available on arxiv.org. Here's the link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3493.pdf > > It is titled "Optical Atomic Clocks," and it says on page 4: > > "As Maxwell realized, an atom can be an ideal frequency standard because, > as far as we know, one atom is exactly identical to another atom of the same > species. Therefore, if we build a device that registers the frequency of a > natural oscillation of an atom, say the mechanical oscillations of an electron > about the atom's core, all such devices will run at exactly the same frequency > (except for relativistic effects discussed below), independent of comparison. > Therefore, the requirement for making an atomic frequency standard is > relatively easy to state: we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an > apparatus that produces an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the > atoms' natural oscillations. Then, to make a clock, we simply count cycles of > the oscillatory signal." > The fact is that you can't read a scientific paper. They clearly wrote: "we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an apparatus that produces an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the atoms' natural oscillations". This part you don't understand at all. At certain frequencies the lone electron of Cesium jumps between the so called hyperfine states. The oven where these cesium atoms are directed are hit by the high frequency electromagnetic wave and jump between these hyperfine states. A detector checks for one of the states and the feedback signal to the quartz clock corrects the frequency of the wave in order to maximize the count of cesium atoms. This count maximizes at a frequency of the wave of 9,192,631,770 Hz. You are wrong in all your opinions about how physics works, mostly because of your total ignorance of mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcc40d63-df7c-4f78-8e21-7457787569dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474675 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El jueves, 11 de octubre de 2018, 13:16:25 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:11:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Nothing. Cs always has the transition state at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > > > > > The oscillator may attempt to drift because of temperature variations, > > > voltage variations etc. The feedback is there to PREVENT the oscillator > > > drift. This is bog standard phase locked loop circuitry. Look it up in a > > > good engineering reference. > > > > You posted your message as I was reading a paper written by NIST scientists > > that is available on arxiv.org. Here's the link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3493.pdf > > > > It is titled "Optical Atomic Clocks," and it says on page 4: > > > > "As Maxwell realized, an atom can be an ideal frequency standard because, > > as far as we know, one atom is exactly identical to another atom of the same > > species. Therefore, if we build a device that registers the frequency of a > > natural oscillation of an atom, say the mechanical oscillations of an electron > > about the atom's core, all such devices will run at exactly the same frequency > > (except for relativistic effects discussed below), independent of comparison. > > Therefore, the requirement for making an atomic frequency standard is > > relatively easy to state: we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an > > apparatus that produces an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the > > atoms' natural oscillations. Then, to make a clock, we simply count cycles of > > the oscillatory signal." > > > > The fact is that you can't read a scientific paper. They clearly wrote: > "we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an apparatus that produces > an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the atoms' natural oscillations". > > This part you don't understand at all. At certain frequencies the lone electron of > Cesium jumps between the so called hyperfine states. The oven where these cesium > atoms are directed are hit by the high frequency electromagnetic wave and jump > between these hyperfine states. A detector checks for one of the states and > the feedback signal to the quartz clock corrects the frequency of the wave in > order to maximize the count of cesium atoms. This count maximizes at a > frequency of the wave of 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > You are wrong in all your opinions about how physics works, mostly because > of your total ignorance of mathematics. 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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web