Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476145 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 12:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 14:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-03 15:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:17 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-05 16:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-06 06:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:20 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 17:40 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 04:29 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 22:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 13:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 21:19 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 21:15 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 05:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:41 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:46 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 07:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 12:09 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 09:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 19:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 06:30 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 16:58 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 10:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:17 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-04 17:51 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:42 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 08:45 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 15:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:27 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:44 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 05:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:35 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 08:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 14:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 14:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-09 00:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 15:04 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 23:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:34 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 17:42 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:15 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 11:29 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:28 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-14 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 06:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 06:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-14 23:23 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 07:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 16:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-16 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 20:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 00:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:19 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 12:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 06:35 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 00:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 09:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 20:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:12 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-19 17:45 -0600
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Lochù Umská <lare@cpi2alwa.cc> - 2018-11-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 12:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-22 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:14 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-18 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-19 06:49 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:10 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 18:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 14:22 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 08:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-21 10:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 07:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 16:07 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 05:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:11 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 07:44 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 17:54 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-20 10:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 08:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prqhsq$gul$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476212 |
rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:46:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:44:06 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> > No, that is not true. Nowhere does SR make such a claim. >> > Can you quota a passage where SR uses the expression "universal >> > interval of time' ? > > Still no references/quotes to support your claim? You are making > yourself look like a liar again. > >> SR claims that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation... > > SR makes no such claims. Its is YOU, with your messed up > interpretations, that claim that. Why wont you better enlighten us with the proper claims of SR. What I can see is when cornered you relativists are leaving your very own sinking ships.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prkk2t$215$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476145 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >According to SR:=20 >A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage >of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock >second in the unprimed clock. ... >PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. That means on a co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. It is only when observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational potential) when this is not the case. Specifically, if A and B are relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as running slow. But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. We see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we would see the Cs clock running fast, so they use a slower frequency (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explanation, especially the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a74746ef-0403-4511-9042-09610ad5eaf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476148 |
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 17:58:07 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. As every fanatic idiot in this world - you're just enchanting the reality. > minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth > and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. Anyone can check (GPS) that not necessarily. But, of course nobody expects a fanatic moron to accept facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 08:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52efda3d-93bf-4cca-b31b-9a2246e285ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476148 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >According to SR:=20 > >A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage > >of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock > >second in the unprimed clock. > ... > > >PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed > IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. > > Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting > your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: > > A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesn’t that mean that a proper clock second is a universal interval of time? >That means on a > co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your > wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 > minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth > and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. >It is only when > observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational > potential) when this is not the case. But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you are saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on making contradictory assertions? >Specifically, if A and B are > relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as > running slow. Not possible....the possibilities are as follows: 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. That means that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than A. 2. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A. That means that A accumulates clock seconds at a sower rate than B. 3. A and B accurate clock seconds at the same rate. >But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at > 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a universal interval of time in all frames.....right? >We > see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 > cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock > on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we > would see the Cs clock running fast, Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same for everyone. Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not the same as a proper second on the ground clock. so they use a slower frequency > (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal > (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. > > And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explain that a proper second is the same for everyoneaction, especially > the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prnano$15df$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476218 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> According to SR: >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage >>> of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock >>> second in the unprimed clock. >> ... >> >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> >> It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed >> IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. >> >> Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting >> your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: >> >> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. > > So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesnt that mean that a > proper clock second is a universal interval of time? No. He didn’t state it carefully enough to prevent you from misreading it. A proper second is the same for every LOCAL observer. Hence the difference below when he talks about NONLOCAL observers. > >> That means on a >> co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your >> wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 >> minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth >> and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will > accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > >> It is only when >> observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational >> potential) when this is not the case. > > But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you > are saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or > different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on > making contradictory assertions? > >> Specifically, if A and B are >> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as >> running slow. > > Not possible....the possibilities are as follows: > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. That means that B > accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > 2. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A. That means that A > accumulates clock seconds at a sower rate than B. > 3. A and B accurate clock seconds at the same rate. > >> But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at >> 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. > > So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a > universal interval of time in all frames.....right? > >> We >> see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 >> cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock >> on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we >> would see the Cs clock running fast, > > Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same for > everyone. Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not the > same as a proper second on the ground clock. > > so they use a slower frequency >> (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal >> (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. >> >> And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explain that a proper >> second is the same for everyoneaction, especially >> the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 23:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11b7abee-e111-4ebc-8180-ef29d97517d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476227 |
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:37:00 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > A proper second is the same for every LOCAL observer. No more than proper system is communism. Some fanatic idiots can believe this, other can believe that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpeqp$its$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476288 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:37:00 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> A proper second is the same for every LOCAL observer. > > No more than proper system is communism. > Some fanatic idiots can believe this, > other can believe that. > There is no jargon term for politics called “proper system”. There is a jargon term in physics called “proper time”. I get that you have no idea what the jargon term means. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 00:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <180b2960-faf5-41c1-9ca4-c6f4ca36ac47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476299 |
On Monday, 5 November 2018 13:59:08 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:37:00 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> A proper second is the same for every LOCAL observer. > > > > No more than proper system is communism. > > Some fanatic idiots can believe this, > > other can believe that. > > > > There is no jargon term for politics called “proper system”. :) And the idiot woodworker knows! Because the idiot woodworker always knows!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prnanp$15df$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476218 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> According to SR: >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage >>> of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock >>> second in the unprimed clock. >> ... >> >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> >> It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed >> IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. >> >> Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting >> your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: >> >> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. > > So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesnt that mean that a > proper clock second is a universal interval of time? > >> That means on a >> co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your >> wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 >> minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth >> and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will > accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > >> It is only when >> observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational >> potential) when this is not the case. > > But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you > are saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or > different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on > making contradictory assertions? > >> Specifically, if A and B are >> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as >> running slow. > > Not possible.... Yes it is. The realm of possibility doesn’t match your wee head. > the possibilities are as follows: > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. That means that B > accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > 2. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A. That means that A > accumulates clock seconds at a sower rate than B. > 3. A and B accurate clock seconds at the same rate. > >> But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at >> 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. > > So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a > universal interval of time in all frames.....right? No. > >> We >> see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 >> cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock >> on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we >> would see the Cs clock running fast, > > Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same for > everyone. Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not the > same as a proper second on the ground clock. A proper second is the same for any LOCAL observer. > > so they use a slower frequency >> (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal >> (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. >> >> And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explain that a proper >> second is the same for everyoneaction, especially >> the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 23:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b216312e-1572-453f-87d4-83975144d114@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476228 |
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:37:00 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Specifically, if A and B are > >> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as > >> running slow. > > > > Not possible.... > > Yes it is. The realm of possibility doesn’t match your wee head. No, it isn't. The realm of possibility doesn't match moronic delusions of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4272ea57-a0c3-4bb7-b555-863ca0d2ca3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476228 |
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:37:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >>> According to SR: > >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage > >>> of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock > >>> second in the unprimed clock. > >> ... > >> > >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > >> > >> It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed > >> IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. > >> > >> Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting > >> your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: > >> > >> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. > > > > So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesn t that mean that a > > proper clock second is a universal interval of time? > > > >> That means on a > >> co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your > >> wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 > >> minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth > >> and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. > > > > This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will > > accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > >> It is only when > >> observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational > >> potential) when this is not the case. > > > > But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you > > are saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or > > different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on > > making contradictory assertions? > > > >> Specifically, if A and B are > >> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as > >> running slow. > > > > Not possible.... > > Yes it is. The realm of possibility doesn’t match your wee head. Moron, all the possibilities are listed below. Since your posts are content free I will not answer any more of your posts. > > the possibilities are as follows: > > 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. That means that B > > accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > 2. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A. That means that A > > accumulates clock seconds at a sower rate than B. > > 3. A and B accurate clock seconds at the same rate. > > > >> But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at > >> 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. > > > > So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a > > universal interval of time in all frames.....right? > > No. > > > > >> We > >> see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 > >> cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock > >> on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we > >> would see the Cs clock running fast, > > > > Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same for > > everyone. Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not the > > same as a proper second on the ground clock. > > A proper second is the same for any LOCAL observer. > > > > > so they use a slower frequency > >> (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal > >> (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. > >> > >> And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explain that a proper > >> second is the same for everyoneaction, especially > >> the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpnes$12p5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476305 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:37:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> According to SR: >>>>> A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage >>>>> of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock >>>>> second in the unprimed clock. >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >>>> >>>> It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed >>>> IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. >>>> >>>> Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting >>>> your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: >>>> >>>> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. >>> >>> So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesn t that mean that a >>> proper clock second is a universal interval of time? >>> >>>> That means on a >>>> co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your >>>> wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 >>>> minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth >>>> and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. >>> >>> This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will >>> accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. >>> >>>> It is only when >>>> observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational >>>> potential) when this is not the case. >>> >>> But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you >>> are saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or >>> different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on >>> making contradictory assertions? >>> >>>> Specifically, if A and B are >>>> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as >>>> running slow. >>> >>> Not possible.... >> >> Yes it is. The realm of possibility doesn’t match your wee head. > > Moron, all the possibilities are listed below. Nope. > Since your posts are content free I will not answer any more of your posts. I guarantee that what you just said is a lie. You can’t help yourself and you know it. > >>> the possibilities are as follows: >>> 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. That means that B >>> accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than A. >>> 2. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A. That means that A >>> accumulates clock seconds at a sower rate than B. >>> 3. A and B accurate clock seconds at the same rate. >>> >>>> But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at >>>> 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. >>> >>> So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a >>> universal interval of time in all frames.....right? >> >> No. >> >>> >>>> We >>>> see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 >>>> cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock >>>> on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we >>>> would see the Cs clock running fast, >>> >>> Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same for >>> everyone. Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not the >>> same as a proper second on the ground clock. >> >> A proper second is the same for any LOCAL observer. >> >>> >>> so they use a slower frequency >>>> (9,192,631,774+ cycle divisor) to compensate. That special signal >>>> (9,192,631,774+ cycles of Cs) is NOT a second on the satellite. >>>> >>>> And I can hear you typing already, your failed IRT explain that a proper >>>> second is the same for everyoneaction, especially >>>> the stupid "redefinition of a second" is just plain WRONG. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prnbjf$5gq$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476218 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >According to SR: >> >A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the passage >> >of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the passage of a clock >> >second in the unprimed clock. >> ... >> >PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> It has been explained to you many times, but you keep invoking your failed >> IRT so you go off believing the wrong thing. >> Now do you actually want to LEARN or is your post an excuse for posting >> your incorrect IRT crapola? In case you (or anyone else wants to learn: >> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. >So a proper second is the same for everyone......doesn't that mean >that a proper clock second is a universal interval of time? No, it cannot. A second of proper time is only valid locally. It appears that you do NOT want to learn, you only wanted an excuse to promote your failed IRT beliefs. >>That means on a >> co-moving clock at the same gravitational potential. (think of your >> wristwatch, it keeps proper time for you) Meaning that locally, a 3 >> minute egg always takes 3 minutes, a woman takes 9 months to give birth >> and a Cs atom has radiation of 9,192,631,770 Hz. =20 >This is an oxymoron statement. Of course clocks in your frame will >accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. >>It is only when >> observing a NON-LOCAL clock (relatively moving or different gravitational >> potential) when this is not the case.=20 >But you said that a proper second is the same for everyone.....now you are >saying that a proper second in NON-LOCAL frames (relatively moving or >different gravitational potential) are not the same. Why are you keep on >making contradictory assertions? You cannot compare, or even reference the proper time of another relatively moving frame. "Proper second in NON-LOCAL frames" doesn't even make sense. How can it be local and non-local at the same time? Also "proper second" is wrong, a second is a unit of time. You can talk about "a second of proper time" if you want. >>Specifically, if A and B are >> relatively moving, A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock as >> running slow. >Not possible....the possibilities are as follows: Yes it is possible since A and B are comparing PROJECTIONS of the other's time to their own proper time. They are not comparing the same thing. Implicit in your arguments is that there is some sort of master clock of the universe which is the same for everybody, which is WRONG. That is Galilean relativity, we're discussing SR, not Galilean relativity here. >>But both A and B see a proper time Cs clock running at >> 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, a 3 minute egg taking 3 minutes etc. >So that means that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation is a >universal interval of time in all frames.....right? No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. >>We >> see this with the GPS satellites, their atomic clocks run at 9,192,631,770 >> cycles per second ACCORDING TO SOMEONE LOCAL TO THE SATELLITE, a Cs clock >> on the ground also runs at 9,192,631,770 cycles, but here on the ground we >> would see the Cs clock running fast, >Make up your mind....before you said that a proper second is the same >for everyone. It is. An astronaut riding with the Cs clock will see all 1 second events taking 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs frequency OF THAT (LOCAL TO HIM) CLOCK (the satellite). Someone on the ground will see all 1 second events taking 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs frequency OF THAT (LOCAL TO HIM) CLOCK (on the ground). But neither can directly compare the non-local clock to their local clock (the satellite clock to the ground clock). Again, your mistake is assuming the Galilean time transform t'=t, there is some universal time which is the same everywhere for everyone. If you insist on believing that, go join Robert Winn in believing the Galilean Transform, not SR/the Lorentz Transform, is correct. > Now you said that a proper second in the satellite is not >the same as a proper second on the ground clock. You cannot directly compare them since you cannot reference the non-local time as the proper (local) time. Only the projection after it has gone through the transform. In the case of the satellite, we predict (correctly) that a clock which ticks once per 9,192,631,774+ cycles of the Cs frequency on the satellite will tick exactly in lockstep with an earthbound Cs clock which has a second timer at one tick per 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 23:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8beb6236-6fc3-471a-a829-16de8c9d5f61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476230 |
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:51:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 > cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a > 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. As everybody can check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpphj$j0i$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476289 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:51:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 >> cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a >> 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. >A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. >As everybody can check at GPS. And if you check the GPS and ignore gravitational effects*, you'll see the GPS clock would be observed as running 7 microseconds/day slow due to the SR velocity effect. And this is in the GPS specs. (*) Which is wrong as the gravitational effects are larger than the SR velocity effect, at +45 microseconds/day. The sum of the two is +38 microseconds/day, a number which is also in the GPS specs, which everybody can check.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 08:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <193aac97-5494-4374-961c-ec98d00ed386@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476322 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:01:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:51:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 > >> cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a > >> 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. > >As everybody can check at GPS. > > And if you check the GPS and ignore gravitational effects*, you'll see the > GPS clock would be observed as running 7 microseconds/day slow due to the > SR velocity effect. And this is in the GPS specs. > > (*) Which is wrong as the gravitational effects are larger than the SR > velocity effect, at +45 microseconds/day. The sum of the two is +38 > microseconds/day, a number which is also in the GPS specs, which everybody > can check. So that means that the GPS is accumulating microseconds at a faster rate.....right? To correct this imbalance, they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 08:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7fe59de1-8e55-d887-f84e-64a86ff84323@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #476324 |
kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:01:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >>> On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:51:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 >>>> cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a >>>> 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. >>> A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. >>> As everybody can check at GPS. >> >> And if you check the GPS and ignore gravitational effects*, you'll see the >> GPS clock would be observed as running 7 microseconds/day slow due to the >> SR velocity effect. And this is in the GPS specs. >> >> (*) Which is wrong as the gravitational effects are larger than the SR >> velocity effect, at +45 microseconds/day. The sum of the two is +38 >> microseconds/day, a number which is also in the GPS specs, which everybody >> can check. Note that it is a simplification to look at the satellite clock’s advance as a combination of special-relativistic (“translational”) and general-relativistic (“gravitational”) effects. In fact, GR gives the correct answer by itself, but I will freely admit that I do not know GR well enough yet to make that calculation. > So that means that the GPS is accumulating microseconds at a faster rate.....right? Not GPS (that is a whole system, ground clocks included), but GPS _satellites_. *Compared* with the ground (“faster” is a comparison, it requires something to compare against). Or, IOW, in each interval of proper time on the ground, GPS satellite(’)s (clocks) accumulate *more* proper time than (clocks on) the ground. > To correct this imbalance, they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. It is not an "imbalance" (look up the word), but that is essentially correct (I have not checked your values). If you now think about it, you should realize that is is merely a specific *change* in the *counting* of time *aboard* the satellites (based on SR and GR), a *modification*, that allows the GPS satellite’s clocks to remain almost synchronous with (GPS) ground clocks. Because SR and GR describe our universe *correctly* (precisely enough). - PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 00:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <153fca4a-5e89-461b-901d-2296102b00c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476394 |
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 08:45:24 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > It is not an "imbalance" (look up the word), but that is essentially correct > (I have not checked your values). Surely it's correct for a fanatic believer. But even the hardest fanatic believer isn't stupid enough to insist on applying what he believes is "correct". > If you now think about it, you should realize that is is merely a specific > *change* in the *counting* of time *aboard* the satellites (based on SR and > GR), a *modification*, that allows the GPS satellite’s clocks to remain > almost synchronous with (GPS) ground clocks. If you now think about it you should realize that no matter how mere these changes are, they make clocks indicating t'=t, and according to the own definition of your idiot guru - time is what clocks indicate. > Because SR and GR describe our > universe *correctly* (precisely enough). - > PointedEars The universe of your dreams, only. In the real universe clocks are ruled by common sense (not by your idiot guru) and thus indicate t'=t. Anyone can check at GPS. > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prsd2o$6j3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476324 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:01:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >> >On Sunday, 4 November 2018 18:51:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> No, it is only valid LOCALLY. It is true that LOCALLY, 9,192,631,770 >> >> cycles of the Cs 133 radiation frequency * 60 * 3 is the time to cook a >> >> 3 minute egg for everyone, and all other time related events LOCALLY. >> >> >A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. >> >As everybody can check at GPS. >> >> And if you check the GPS and ignore gravitational effects*, you'll see the >> GPS clock would be observed as running 7 microseconds/day slow due to the >> SR velocity effect. And this is in the GPS specs. >> >> (*) Which is wrong as the gravitational effects are larger than the SR >> velocity effect, at +45 microseconds/day. The sum of the two is +38 >> microseconds/day, a number which is also in the GPS specs, which everybody >> can check. >So that means that the GPS is accumulating microseconds at a faster >rate.....right? The GPS *satellite*'s clock is ticking at the correct rate as far as it is concerned. It sees the earth's clock as running slow and the earth observer sees it as running fast. >To correct this imbalance, It is not an imbalance. >they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Wrong. There is only one kind of second, and it is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain Cs 133 radiation on a local Cs clock. Nobody but the ISO committee can redefine the second, and they haven't done so since around 1967. It is true they use a second clock signal that ticks once per 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs frequency periods, but that is *not* a second at the Cs clock, and the GR time dilation effects exactly cancel the difference between it and a second (by design) when received on earth, so *on earth* that clock is in lockstep with a 1 second clock. You have been told that many, many, many times yet you persist on using your incorrect made-up definition. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9c9a601-18e8-408e-8ab8-798ce009f26b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476421 |
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 16:47:38 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > Wrong. There is only one kind of second, and it is defined as 9,192,631,770 > periods of a certain Cs 133 radiation on a local Cs clock. Enchanting of the reality is typical for brainwashed fanatics of all kinds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web