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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 05:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps8d2s$p3m$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476749 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Saturday, 10 November 2018 23:05:11 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >> >On Friday, 9 November 2018 01:37:52 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> We're not talking about any ground clock at this time. The astronaut is >> >> floating next to the satellite and comparing his Cs clock to the Cs clock >> >> on the satellite. >> >> >Why can't he simply use the satellite clock, poor >> >halfbrain? >> >> Go back to sleep, Woz. >> >> If you read the reply which Ken responded to, I was talking about an >> astronaut floating next to the satellite and comparing his clock to the >> satellite's clock, with the point being both clocks would agree with each >> other and read the same. >So they both indicate axactly the same time as the ground clock, What ground clock, Woz? Go back to sleep. Once again, this is the satellite clock being compared to the clock of the astronaut floating next to the satellite. He is not on the ground. Are you talking about the previous paragraph, before launch, when both the unlaunched satellite and an observer with a Cs clock next to it are ground clocks, and the observer compares the two ground clocks? Or maybe the next paragraph when I introduced the ground observers? Either way, why are you discussing the quoted paragraph, not one of the other two? Apparently, you are very, very confused. >against moronic prophecies of your idiot guru, right? So who is this idiot guru of yours? Why do you consider him to be your guru if you know he is an idiot? Is the reason why you are very, very confused because you follow your idiot guru?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 23:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e2ebf856-d97c-4517-8f9f-c8e6f52629c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476759 |
On Sunday, 11 November 2018 06:01:18 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Saturday, 10 November 2018 23:05:11 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > >> > >> >On Friday, 9 November 2018 01:37:52 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >> >> We're not talking about any ground clock at this time. The astronaut is > >> >> floating next to the satellite and comparing his Cs clock to the Cs clock > >> >> on the satellite. > >> > >> >Why can't he simply use the satellite clock, poor > >> >halfbrain? > >> > >> Go back to sleep, Woz. > >> > >> If you read the reply which Ken responded to, I was talking about an > >> astronaut floating next to the satellite and comparing his clock to the > >> satellite's clock, with the point being both clocks would agree with each > >> other and read the same. > > >So they both indicate axactly the same time as the ground clock, > > What ground clock, Woz? Go back to sleep. Mike, poor idiot. If it's a satellite - it is orbitting something. If it's GPS satellite - it's orbitting Earth. Ground clock is a clock on Earth. It's not complicated at all, even such an idiot can catch it if he tries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8340886-8808-423a-87f8-07024411b3c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476230 |
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. So are you saying that observer A’s clock second defined as 9,192,631,770 Cs 133 radiation is not the same as observer B’s clock second defined as 9,192,631,770 Cs 133 radiation? In that case, you can’t use a clock second to define the speed of light as a universal constant. > It appears that you do NOT want to learn, you only wanted an excuse to > promote your failed IRT beliefs. Why do I have to accept your unsupported assertions? > > >>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? Idiot whether it is local or non-local all frames have the same definition for the clock second: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > Also "proper second" is wrong, a second is a unit of time. You can talk > about “a second of proper time" if you want. What”proper second” is wrong and “ a second of paper time is right”? > > >>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. No it is not possible. In our universe, if A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B cannot claims that he is accumulating clock second at a faster rate than A. > > 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. No, in our universe, when comparing two clocks, one will accumulate clock seconds than the other.....no exception. This comparison is valid because we accept that a clock second is a universal interval of time---9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > >>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. But all frames local or non-local defines a clock second of have 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. BTW I don’t agree that all frames will make soft boiled eggs by cooking them at 3 minutes. BTW, what you said above suggests that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > >>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). So are you saying that the satellite clock second is the same as an earth clock second? Or are you saying that a satellite clock second is different than an oath clock second? > > 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. I didn’t assume anything. > > > > 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. It was you who made direct comparison. You said that a proper clock second is the same for everybody. > 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpuo1$lfg$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476323 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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: >> >> A second of PROPER TIME is the same for everyone. I should have written "A second of PROPER TIME is LOCALLY 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. >So are you saying that observer A's clock second defined as 9,192,631,770 >Cs 133 radiation is not the same as observer B's clock second defined as >9,192,631,770 Cs 133 radiation? You cannot compare them directly because A's clock is not local to B and B's clock is not local to A. >In that case, you can't use a clock second to define the speed of light >as a universal constant. Yes you can. Your assertion is meaningless. >> It appears that you do NOT want to learn, you only wanted an excuse to >> promote your failed IRT beliefs. >Why do I have to accept your unsupported assertions? It is supported ALL OVER THE PLACE, if you'd only read some of the books which have been written about SR over the last 100+ years! >> >>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? >> 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? >Idiot whether it is local or non-local all frames have the same definition >for the clock second: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on a LOCAL Cs clock. That tosses out your "non-local" bit. If the Cs clock is stationary in Frame A, an observer stationary in Frame A can use the clock as a reference because it is local. An observer stationary in Frame B, which is moving relative to Frame A cannot use A's clock directly as a reference, because it is not local/stationary wrt him. (He CAN use the clock as a reference if he knows the speed etc. and compensates for it. This is essentially how the GPS works) >> Also "proper second" is wrong, a second is a unit of time. You can talk >> about "a second of proper time" if you want. >What"proper second" is wrong and " a second of paper time is right"? There is only one kind of second, 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on a LOCAL Cs clock. "Proper second" does not make sense. Measuring proper time in seconds does make sense. >> >>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. >No it is not possible. In our universe, if A accumulates clock seconds at a > faster rate than B then B cannot claims that he is accumulating clock >second at a faster rate than A. Your assertions aren't proof of anything, and that is NOT what SR says. Once again you are implicitly assuming a universal time that is the same everywhere in the universe. This is the Galilean transform and does NOT apply to SR. Robert Winn is a very nice man, you should be talking to him instead. >> 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. >No, in our universe, when comparing two clocks, one will accumulate clock >seconds than the other.....no exception. This is the Galilean transform and does not apply to SR. > This comparison is valid because >we accept that a clock second is a universal interval of time---9,192,631,770 >periods of Cs 133 radiation. Only for the Galilean transform. Again we're discussing SR, not the Galilean transform, with universal time t'=t everywhere and for everyone. >> >>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. >But all frames local or non-local defines a clock second of have >9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. LOCALLY. > BTW I don't agree that all frames >will make soft boiled eggs by cooking them at 3 minutes. Too bad for you. > BTW, what you said above suggests that a clock second is a universal >interval of time. Not when the definition is only valid locally! It is the definition of the second which is universal, and which depends on a LOCAL clock and is valid 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). >So are you saying that the satellite clock second is the same as an earth >clock second? Or are you saying that a satellite clock second is different >than an oath clock second? I am saying the Cs clock seconds are valid LOCALLY, they are proper time. You cannot compare proper time of one frame to proper time of the other, they are not local to each other. The transforms cause differences. >> 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. >I didn't assume anything. You most certainly did! All your complaints are based on trying to compare the proper time of a Cs clock in orbit to the proper time of a Cs clock on the ground and complaining that SR/GR says they are not the same. >> > 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. >It was you who made direct comparison. You said that a proper clock second >is the same for everybody. Is the same LOCALLY.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpvdr$1ihf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476323 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. > > So are you saying that observer As clock second defined as 9,192,631,770 > Cs 133 radiation is not the same as observer Bs clock second defined as > 9,192,631,770 Cs 133 radiation? > In that case, you cant use a clock second to define the speed of light > as a universal constant. Sure you can. It’s a LOCAL statement about the speed of light. > >> It appears that you do NOT want to learn, you only wanted an excuse to >> promote your failed IRT beliefs. > > Why do I have to accept your unsupported assertions? You don’t have to accept ANYTHING. You will still be wrong though. You’re choice to be ignorant, your choice to be wrong. You like to say, “But it’s your job to convince me I’m wrong.” No, nobody owes you that. > >> >>>> 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? >> >> 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? > > Idiot whether it is local or non-local all frames have the same > definition for the clock second: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. Nope. That’s a strictly LOCAL definition. > >> >> Also "proper second" is wrong, a second is a unit of time. You can talk >> about a second of proper time" if you want. > > What proper second is wrong and a second of paper time is right ? > >> >>>> 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. > > No it is not possible. In our universe, if A accumulates clock seconds at > a faster rate than B then B cannot claims that he is accumulating clock > second at a faster rate than A. > >> >> 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, were discussing SR, not Galilean relativity here. > > No, in our universe, when comparing two clocks, one will accumulate clock > seconds than the other.....no exception. Not true. There are clear exceptions. > This comparison is valid because we accept that a clock second is a > universal interval of time---9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. > >> >>>> 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. > > But all frames local or non-local defines a clock second of have > 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. BTW I dont agree that all > frames will make soft boiled eggs by cooking them at 3 minutes. BTW, what > you said above suggests that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > >> >>>> 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). > > So are you saying that the satellite clock second is the same as an earth > clock second? Or are you saying that a satellite clock second is > different than an oath clock second? Ask the same question with the word LOCAL in the right places. > >> >> 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. > > I didnt assume anything. >> >> >>> 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. > > It was you who made direct comparison. You said that a proper clock > second is the same for everybody. > >> 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. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prkkbg$215$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476145 |
>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's "we would see the Cs clock ON THE SATELLITE running fast" of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 08:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33b022a1-7ee7-47d2-92cd-fc5d6bfe44cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476150 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 1:02:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >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's "we would see the Cs clock ON THE SATELLITE running fast" of course. So that means that a proper second on the satellite is not the same as a proper second on the ground clock.....right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 18:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <63d76bba-2484-6d96-ab70-b1079bcab1f3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #476220 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 1:02:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney > wrote: >>> 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's "we would see the Cs clock ON THE SATELLITE running fast" of >> course. > > So that means that a proper second on the satellite is not the same as a > proper second on the ground clock.....right? No, "we" are *on the ground* then. "We" are NOT moving with a satellite clock and we are NOT at the same altitude as such a clock. "We" *cannot* observe "proper seconds on the satellite" from the ground, only *coordinate* seconds (if we subtract light-travel delay). What we can observe *by later comparison* is that the satellite clocks accumulate more proper time than the ground clocks, measured in units of ground clock proper seconds, if you will. Which is what the GPS engineers did (once, AFAIK). After which they tuned the oscillator of the satellite clocks (*once* with NAVSTAR NTS-2 in orbit, AFAIK; now already in the launch lab on the ground) so that the satellite clocks would mostly be in sync with the ground clocks *even though* they *still* accumulate about 48 µs more proper time per day. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f98322b-2bdf-426a-9138-33a630ddcbde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476145 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:45:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > 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. > > According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time. > Delta(t’)=gamma*delta(t) > This means that the passage of a clock second on the primed clock is not equal to the passage of a clock second on the unprimed clock. > > This means that the SR math disagrees with the SR definition FOR THE MEANING of a clock second. > > PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! At contact we could compare. I suppose their standard will be very close to ours. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prkr70$1cbi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476156 |
mitchrae3323 wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:45:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> 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. >> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal >> interval of time. Delta(t’)=gamma*delta(t) >> This means that the passage of a clock second on the primed clock is >> not equal to the passage of a clock second on the unprimed clock. >> This means that the SR math disagrees with the SR definition FOR THE >> MEANING of a clock second. PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > At contact we could compare. I suppose their standard will be very close > to ours. Mitchell Raemsch No you can't. A comparison takes a minimum of three steps, a local event each. Distinct events are along the time line, which again, involves the passage of time. (propagation delay).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ba391da-4e12-4bc1-bf37-9307ec3d08e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476159 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-7, Buck Dehner wrote: > mitchrae3323 wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:45:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> 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. > >> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal > >> interval of time. Delta(t’)=gamma*delta(t) > >> This means that the passage of a clock second on the primed clock is > >> not equal to the passage of a clock second on the unprimed clock. > >> This means that the SR math disagrees with the SR definition FOR THE > >> MEANING of a clock second. PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > > > At contact we could compare. I suppose their standard will be very close > > to ours. Mitchell Raemsch > > No you can't. A comparison takes a minimum of three steps, a local event > each. Distinct events are along the time line, which again, involves the > passage of time. (propagation delay). How can you speak for them? I will... maybe you can't... but an advanced civilization can. To them it would be simplistic. It would be what they are prepared to compare. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prst73$bbh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476340 |
On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:29:56 -0800, mitchrae3323 wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-7, Buck Dehner wrote: >> mitchrae3323 wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:45:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> >> According to SR: >> >> A clock second is a universal interval of time. In other words the >> >> passage of a clock second in the primed clock is equal to the >> >> passage of a clock second in the unprimed clock. >> >> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal >> >> interval of time. Delta(t’)=gamma*delta(t) >> >> This means that the passage of a clock second on the primed clock is >> >> not equal to the passage of a clock second on the unprimed clock. >> >> This means that the SR math disagrees with the SR definition FOR THE >> >> MEANING of a clock second. PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> > >> > At contact we could compare. I suppose their standard will be very >> > close to ours. Mitchell Raemsch >> >> No you can't. A comparison takes a minimum of three steps, a local >> event each. Distinct events are along the time line, which again, >> involves the passage of time. (propagation delay). > > How can you speak for them? I will... > maybe you can't... but an advanced civilization can. > To them it would be simplistic. It would be what they are prepared to > compare. Mitchell Raemsch No, this neither. Those three events are distinct disregard civilizations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 11:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LFTGD.352413$p%6.27214@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #476145 |
On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: > According to SR: > A clock second is a universal interval of time...... > > According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... > > PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! SR is BULLSHIT. The LT are BULLSHIT. Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 05:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db58996b-82bc-4292-82f2-023f6b73c7ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477051 |
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: > > According to SR: > > A clock second is a universal interval of time...... > > > > According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... > > > > PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > > Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, > Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! > > SR is BULLSHIT. > The LT are BULLSHIT. > > Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 06:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3a3ad24-9754-4e8e-9383-fc943b879bc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477057 |
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! So, idiot ken, have you understood that if "clock A indicates 5 and clock B indicates 4" then this means that "clock A indicates 5 and clock B indicates 4" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 15:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NkXGD.183990$g31.75815@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #477057 |
On 14/11/2018 13:14, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: >>> According to SR: >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time...... >>> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, >> Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! >> SR is BULLSHIT. >> The LT are BULLSHIT. >> Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. > Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! Indeed you are right Mr. Seto, so let me explain: 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical physics. My point is very simple Mr.Seto, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium, and EINSTEIN WAS WRONG eh! 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether frame", in which light moved with its characteristic velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined "aether frame", but rather than admit that this was because this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why the "aether frame" could not be detected. The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and neither did his "length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! Hope that is what you were after Mr.Seto. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 19:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce49bfa5-8e24-476c-97d4-47327024326b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477070 |
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 7:39:28 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 14/11/2018 13:14, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: > > >>> According to SR: > >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time...... > >>> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... > >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > >> Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, > >> Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! > >> SR is BULLSHIT. > >> The LT are BULLSHIT. > >> Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. > > > Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! > > Indeed you are right Mr. Seto, so let me explain: > > 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > physics. > My point is very simple Mr.Seto, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and EINSTEIN > WAS WRONG eh! > > > 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > "aether frame", but rather than admit that this was because > this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his > imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" > and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why > the "aether frame" could not be detected. > The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected > was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and > neither did his "length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! > > > Hope that is what you were after Mr.Seto. > > keith stein Length contractions No. Time slow Yes by gravity and atomic speed... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ddd9c0d-64b9-4137-bc44-8ae5fb0c44ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477070 |
People on other worlds have clocks with seconds. For those of you with doubt: At contact we will compare.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psj3rt$foh$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477070 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > "medium". "You two in the back, waving your hands, what is your name and comment:" "My name is Fizeau, and I assure you, the speed of light is most definitely NOT relative to a moving medium. I demonstrated this personally, and I confounded physicists for over 50 years" "And you?" "I'm James Clerk Maxwell, and now my comment is 'what he said'. I knew of Fizeau's discovery, and from the confusing fact that the speed of light appeared to be a fixed constant in the 'air' medium and NOT relative to moving mediums, I realized the speed of light was some sort of physics law. I did derive from electric and magnetic constants of nature, but I never could comprehend exactly what was going on. It took some dude with really bad hair to do that, and all I can do is slap my forehead and say 'why didn't I think of that?!' So close but so far! Maybe my hair was just too neat." Mr. Fizeau, another comment? "Yeah, Mr. Bad Hair also stuck his tongue out at me, taunting me by saying 'Nah Nah, I know why your moving water experiment confounded people and even confounds those with smaller minds to this very day, but you don't! You just don't know how to add speeds!' He is always sticking out his tongue! But later he did thank me for starting him down the right path."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 23:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa25854f-ecfc-47c8-97b0-4b7fcd9a22fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477118 |
On Thursday, 15 November 2018 07:31:27 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > > > 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT > > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > > "medium". > > "You two in the back, waving your hands, what is your name and comment:" > > "My name is Fizeau, and I assure you, the speed of light is most definitely > NOT relative to a moving medium. I demonstrated this personally, and I > confounded physicists for over 50 years" > > "And you?" > > "I'm James Clerk Maxwell, and now my comment is 'what he said'. I knew > of Fizeau's discovery, and from the confusing fact that the speed of light > appeared to be a fixed constant in the 'air' medium and NOT relative to > moving mediums, I realized the speed of light was some sort of physics law. > I did derive from electric and magnetic constants of nature, but I never > could comprehend exactly what was going on. It took some dude with really > bad hair to do that, and all I can do is slap my forehead and say 'why > didn't I think of that?!' So close but so far! Maybe my hair was just too > neat." > > Mr. Fizeau, another comment? > > "Yeah, Mr. Bad Hair also stuck his tongue out at me, taunting me by saying > 'Nah Nah, I know why your moving water experiment confounded people and > even confounds those with smaller minds to this very day, but you don't! > You just don't know how to add speeds!' He is always sticking out his > tongue! But later he did thank me for starting him down the right path." Well, mr "Fizeau", did you demonstrate also that GPS clocks are broken clocks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web