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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 06:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e699a19-13a9-44e5-a245-eb1abae40209@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476421 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:47:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. What do you mean by “see”.....do they use a telescope to “see” how the GPS is accumulation clock seconds? BTW it is not possible to “see” the GPS accumulating seconds accumulating clock seconds as slow and the GPS “see” the earth clock accumulating clock seconds as slow. Later on in this post you contradict yourself: you said the GPS is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock. > > >To correct this imbalance, > > It is not an imbalance. It is an imbalance when they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > > >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. Sigh....the imbalance due to the relativistic and gravitational effects are cancel out by resetting the GPS before launch. This is designed to make the GPS accumulating redefines GPS second at the same rate as the ground clock. > > 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. So adding 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second is designed to make the GPS accumulating clock seconds at the same rate as the ground clock and thus making the GPS running at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time.. > > You have been told that many, many, many times yet you persist on using > your incorrect made-up definition. Why? I told you many, many, many times that your beliefs are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 21:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prvmbh$p0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476494 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:47:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. >What do you mean by "see".....do they use a telescope to "see" how the >GPS is accumulation clock seconds? Observe, measure, etc. We observe what's going on at the satellites by measuring the frequencies of signals that were transmitted at known frequencies, for example. >BTW it is not possible to "see" the GPS accumulating seconds >accumulating clock seconds as slow and the GPS "see" the earth clock >accumulating clock seconds as slow. OK, we *measure* the clock on a moving object as running slow, and an observer on the moving object will measure our clock running slow. Measure, observe, see, whatever. Remember the SR equation for time? t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). The "gamma" is where the 'running slow' comes from. And if you swap observers you get t = gamma(t'+vx/c^2). Again the gamma is there, so the moving observer observes/measures our clock as running slow. >Later on in this post you contradict yourself: you said the GPS is >accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock. That is from the gravitational GR effect. >> >To correct this imbalance, >> It is not an imbalance. >It is an imbalance when they are accumulating clock seconds at different >rates. It is not an imbalance. It is just how nature is. >> >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. >Sigh....the imbalance due to the relativistic and gravitational effects There is no imbalance. >are cancel out by resetting the GPS before launch. There is no "resetting" of anything. Before launch, the GPS satellite generates two signals, one one tick per 9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation, and one tick at 9,192,631,774+ periods of the Cs radiation. An observer will measure the first signal as being in perfect lockstep with a Cs clock also local and on the ground, which makes perfect sense since the satellite also has a Cs clock. The 9,192,631,774+ tick is measured as being slow. After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 signal as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock and the 9,192,631,774+ tick is still slow. Meanwhile, people on the ground will measure the 9,192,631,770 signal as running too fast but the 9,192,631,774+ signal keeps perfect time. This is because the slow signal was slowed down by the EXACT AMOUNT necessary to do so, by design. Note that nothing was "reset" on the satellite. Nothing was done to it except actually launching it into orbit. > This is designed to make the GPS accumulating redefines GPS second at >the same rate as the ground clock. There is no "redefining" the second. There is exactly one definition of a second in science/engineering, which is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs radiation from a LOCAL clock. >> 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. >So adding 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second There is no "GPS second" so that phrase is nonsense. > is designed to make the GPS accumulating clock seconds at the same rate >as the ground clock and thus making the GPS running at the same rate as >the ground clock in terms of absolute time.. "Absolute time". I told you several times that we're discussing SR, not Galilean relativity, with its "t' = t" statement, which means that time is the same for everyone, anywhere in the universe. In other words, no such thing as "absolute time" in SR or GR. Yeah, I know you have some sort of gobbledygook where the time of everything is this "absolute time" times some number, but that's irrelevant. You still have Galilean relativity with a cloak of SR imposed on it. >> You have been told that many, many, many times yet you persist on using >> your incorrect made-up definition. Why? >I told you many, many, many times that your beliefs are wrong. Your assertions are just assertions, not facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 05:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db60cd08-9cd2-44e0-9e4d-be68749c353f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476520 |
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 22:44:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and > floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 signal > as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock Surely, an astronaut imagined by a fanatic idiot will suport his idiocies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps4nqd$19it$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476548 |
mlwozniak wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 22:44:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and >> floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 >> signal as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock > > Surely, an astronaut imagined by a fanatic idiot will suport his > idiocies. "astro" stands for other star or planet, but he can't prove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps7ni0$n5o$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476662 |
The nymshifting troll, currently trolling as Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> trolled: >mlwozniak wrote: >> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 22:44:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>> After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and >>> floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 >>> signal as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock >> >> Surely, an astronaut imagined by a fanatic idiot will suport his >> idiocies. >"astro" stands for other star or planet, but he can't prove. You need to get a better Serbian-English dictionary, nymshifter. If you understood English better, you'd know that "astronaut" is any person in space, or at least an American in space since they usually refer to Soviets/Russians in space as "cosmonauts", and I think they even have a completely different term for Chinese people in space (again something-naut) So what would they call Serbians in space?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psfcj2$ic0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476748 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Surely, an astronaut imagined by a fanatic idiot will suport his >>> idiocies. > >>"astro" stands for other star or planet, but he can't prove. > > You need to get a better Serbian-English dictionary, nymshifter. If you > understood English better, you'd know that "astronaut" is any person in > space, or at least an American in space since they usually refer to > Soviets/Russians in space as "cosmonauts", and I think they even have a > completely different term for Chinese people in space (again > something-naut). So what would they call Serbians in space? Without the serbians you would be speaking german today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cfc6471-40c8-4f56-997b-fd9cfaec5038@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476520 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:47:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> 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. > > >What do you mean by "see".....do they use a telescope to "see" how the > >GPS is accumulation clock seconds? > > Observe, measure, etc. Give us an actual example how you “see” (observe , measure) the observed clock running slow. > > We observe what's going on at the satellites by measuring the frequencies > of signals that were transmitted at known frequencies, for example. > > >BTW it is not possible to "see" the GPS accumulating seconds > >accumulating clock seconds as slow and the GPS "see" the earth clock > >accumulating clock seconds as slow. > > OK, we *measure* the clock on a moving object as running slow, and an > observer on the moving object will measure our clock running slow. > Measure, observe, see, whatever. What do we measure? The incoming frequency? How can we measure the clock moving wrt us as running slow and the moving clock measures our clock as running slow? > > Remember the SR equation for time? t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). Yes, this says that when x=0 (direct comparison between the t’ clock rate with the t clock rate), the t’ clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the t clock--every time the t’ clock accumulated 1 second the t clock accumulated gamma seconds on the t clock. >The "gamma" is > where the 'running slow' comes from. Gamma has value >one.....so how does it makes “where the ‘running slow’ comes from? >And if you swap observers you get > t = gamma(t'+vx/c^2). Again the gamma is there, so the moving observer > observes/measures our clock as running slow. I think that the equation should be: t=1/gamma (t’+vx/c^2) This shows that the t’ clock is running slow compared to the t’ clock. > > >Later on in this post you contradict yourself: you said the GPS is > >accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock. > > That is from the gravitational GR effect. > > >> >To correct this imbalance, > > >> It is not an imbalance. > > >It is an imbalance when they are accumulating clock seconds at different > >rates. > > It is not an imbalance. It is just how nature is. > > >> >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. > > >Sigh....the imbalance due to the relativistic and gravitational effects > > There is no imbalance. Yes, there are imbalances. > >are cancel out by resetting the GPS before launch. > > There is no "resetting" of anything. Before launch, the GPS satellite > generates two signals, one one tick per 9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs > radiation, and one tick at 9,192,631,774+ periods of the Cs radiation. So the satellite sends a signal after the passage of 9,192,631,774+ periods of Cs 133 radiation and the ground interprets as passage of 9,192,631,770 periods Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock. > > An observer will measure the first signal as being in perfect lockstep > with a Cs clock also local and on the ground, which makes perfect sense > since the satellite also has a Cs clock. The 9,192,631,774+ tick is > measured as being slow. The 9,192,631,774+ tick is interpreted as running fast.....the 4+ ticks serves to correct this running fast and making the GPS running at the same rate as the ground clock. > > After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and > floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 signal > as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock and the 9,192,631,774+ tick is > still slow. The passage of 9,192,631,774+ ticks on the GPS is corresponded to the passage of 9,192,631,770 ticks on the ground clock. > > Meanwhile, people on the ground will measure the 9,192,631,770 signal as > running too fast but the 9,192,631,774+ signal keeps perfect time. This is > because the slow signal was slowed down by the EXACT AMOUNT necessary to > do so, by design. > > Note that nothing was "reset" on the satellite. Nothing was done to it > except actually launching it into orbit. > > > This is designed to make the GPS accumulating redefines GPS second at > >the same rate as the ground clock. > > There is no "redefining" the second. There is exactly one definition of a > second in science/engineering, which is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs > radiation from a LOCAL clock. > > >> 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. > > >So adding 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second > > There is no "GPS second" so that phrase is nonsense. > > > is designed to make the GPS accumulating clock seconds at the same rate > >as the ground clock and thus making the GPS running at the same rate as > >the ground clock in terms of absolute time.. > > "Absolute time". I told you several times that we're discussing SR, not > Galilean relativity, with its "t' = t" statement, which means that time is > the same for everyone, anywhere in the universe. In other words, no such > thing as “absolute time" in SR or GR. So that means that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > Yeah, I know you have some sort of gobbledygook where the time of > everything is this "absolute time" times some number, but that's > irrelevant. You still have Galilean relativity with a cloak of SR imposed > on it. > > >> You have been told that many, many, many times yet you persist on using > >> your incorrect made-up definition. Why? > > >I told you many, many, many times that your beliefs are wrong. > > Your assertions are just assertions, not facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 15:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79d54774-cf7b-4da7-ad75-5a3ebeef8a5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476578 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:57:13 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Give us an actual example how you “see” (observe , measure) > the observed clock running slow. Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is what actual exps have shown (observation) and is what SR predicted. > What do we measure? The incoming frequency? Thats another way to measure the 'rate'. Just apply the appropriate operational definition and you get a result displayed by the device (an observation). > > Remember the SR equation for time? t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). > > Yes, this says that when x=0 No, it is valid for ALl x. > (direct comparison between the t’ clock rate with the t clock rate), NO, the t & t' are NOT rates. They represent the *values* displayed by the clocks. > .....so how does it makes “where the ‘running slow’ comes from? As I told you, it doesnt make any 'running slow'. 'running slow' uis just an unnecessary expression which basically means that two values differ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 00:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af07970c-65e5-4d10-9613-ba2de1581fe6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476604 |
On Friday, 9 November 2018 00:08:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote: > Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is what actual exps have shown (observation) Of course, you mean observation of an imagined twins from an imagined rocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 07:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <968c0966-e77d-4aed-97f9-fb82115b1325@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476604 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 6:08:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:57:13 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > Give us an actual example how you “see” (observe , measure) > > the observed clock running slow. > > Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is what actual exps have shown (observation) and is what SR predicted. So that means that the SR concept of reciprocity is refuted.....right? > > > > What do we measure? The incoming frequency? > > Thats another way to measure the 'rate'. Just apply the appropriate operational definition and you get a result displayed by the device (an observation). > > > > > > Remember the SR equation for time? t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). > > > > Yes, this says that when x=0 > > No, it is valid for ALl x. > > > (direct comparison between the t’ clock rate with the t clock rate), > > > NO, the t & t' are NOT rates. They represent the *values* displayed by the clocks. > > > > .....so how does it makes “where the ‘running slow’ comes from? > > As I told you, it doesnt make any 'running slow'. > 'running slow' uis just an unnecessary expression which basically means that two values differ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00874fb5-6c51-4639-ae7c-d43bfacdacf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476780 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:43:17 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 6:08:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my > > clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is > > what actual exps have shown (observation) and is what SR predicted. > > So that means that the SR concept of reciprocity is refuted.....right? No, it means that "my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4" and that is all. Stop introducing unnecessary words such as 'reciprocity', especially when you dont even understand their meanings. > > As I told you, it doesnt make any 'running slow'. > > 'running slow' uis just an unnecessary expression which basically > > means that two values differ. Dont you understand that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 08:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6dca84aa-52e2-4bc6-a6d5-12d16a39fa15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476783 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:43:17 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 6:08:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my > > > clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is > > > what actual exps have shown (observation) and is what SR predicted. > > > > So that means that the SR concept of reciprocity is refuted.....right? > > No, it means that "my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4" and that is all. Stop introducing unnecessary words such as 'reciprocity', especially when you dont even understand their meanings. It means that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates and thus refute the SR claim of reciprocity. > > > > > > As I told you, it doesnt make any 'running slow'. > > > 'running slow' uis just an unnecessary expression which basically > > > means that two values differ. > > Dont you understand that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 14:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa6ecff6-421e-4756-abf4-54ab847dbca8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476785 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > No, it means that "my clock B indicates 5 and the K clock > > indicates 4" and that is all. > > It means that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock > seconds at different rates No it doesn't mean that. It ONLY means that "my clock B indicates 5 and the K clock indicates 4". Stop introducing unnecessary words such as 'accumulate', 'clock seconds' and 'rates', especially when you dont even understand their meanings. > > > > As I told you, it doesnt make any 'running slow'. > > > > 'running slow' uis just an unnecessary expression which basically > > > > means that two values differ. > > > > Dont you understand that? No answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6537ca0d-9bb3-4835-95d0-f422b4c63858@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476604 |
On Friday, 9 November 2018 00:08:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote: > Send a clock K from my points A to B. On arrival at B, my clock B indicates 5 and the K clocks indicates 4. This is what actual exps have shown (observation) and is what SR predicted. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Anyone can check at GPS - clocks indications are equal, with the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 15:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c35218cc-4027-4a2a-8f3e-6fbb353db0bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476815 |
A universal second interval standard is for universal clocks. That is a time order interval that is universal. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps2ksu$6c7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476578 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >What do you mean by "see".....do they use a telescope to "see" how the >> >GPS is accumulation clock seconds? >> Observe, measure, etc. >Give us an actual example how you "see" (observe , measure) >the observed clock running slow. Cosmic ray muons reaching the ground, despite the fact that their half-life of 2.2 microseconds means they should only be able to travel 660 meters before decaying, if moving at just under c. >> We observe what's going on at the satellites by measuring the frequencies >> of signals that were transmitted at known frequencies, for example. >> >BTW it is not possible to "see" the GPS accumulating seconds >> >accumulating clock seconds as slow and the GPS "see" the earth clock >> >accumulating clock seconds as slow. >> OK, we *measure* the clock on a moving object as running slow, and an >> observer on the moving object will measure our clock running slow. >> Measure, observe, see, whatever. >What do we measure? The incoming frequency? That's one possibility. >How can we measure the clock moving wrt us as running slow and the moving >clock measures our clock as running slow? Simple. Both of them transmit a signal at a constant, known frequency (the clock) to the other, the receiver measures the frequency against their own frequency source (their clock) and compare. Each can then inform the other that they observe the other's clock as running faster, slower or the same as their local clock. >> Remember the SR equation for time? t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). >Yes, this says that when x=0 (direct comparison between the t' clock >rate with the t clock rate), the t' clock accumulates clock seconds at a >slower rate than the t clock--every time the t' clock accumulated 1 >second the t clock accumulated gamma seconds on the t clock. "x=0" means the unprimed observer is at the origin. The formula does simplify to t' = gamma*t, or the unprimed observer will observe the primed observer's clock as running slow (by a factor of gamma). >>The "gamma" is >> where the 'running slow' comes from. >Gamma has value >one.....so how does it makes "where the 'running slow'" comes from? It means that according to one observer, the clock of the moving object will take a longer time between ticks than the local clock (by a factor of gamma). If the object is moving at about .866 c and both have clocks that tick (locally!) once per second, gamma will equal 2, and one observer will observe the remote clock ticking once every 2 seconds. If gamma=3, once every 3 seconds, and so forth. >>And if you swap observers you get >> t = gamma(t'+vx/c^2). Again the gamma is there, so the moving observer >> observes/measures our clock as running slow. >I think that the equation should be: >t=1/gamma (t'+vx/c^2) It doesn't matter what you think it "should be". If you do the math, you'll see it comes out as I stated, not as you think it "should be". But you can't do the math, so you'll continue to believe what you think it "should be". Besides, what you think it "should be" doesn't work for more than two relatively moving objects. I posted a situation long ago, you just blew it off and never tried to explain the contradiction. >> >> >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. >> >Sigh....the imbalance due to the relativistic and gravitational effects >> There is no imbalance. >Yes, there are imbalances. Your assertions don't mean anything. >> >are cancel out by resetting the GPS before launch. >> There is no "resetting" of anything. Before launch, the GPS satellite >> generates two signals, one one tick per 9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs >> radiation, and one tick at 9,192,631,774+ periods of the Cs radiation. >So the satellite sends a signal after the passage of 9,192,631,774+ periods > of Cs 133 radiation and the ground interprets as passage of 9,192,631,770 >periods Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock. That's pretty much correct, but only after launch. My paragraph is before launch. >> An observer will measure the first signal as being in perfect lockstep >> with a Cs clock also local and on the ground, which makes perfect sense >> since the satellite also has a Cs clock. The 9,192,631,774+ tick is >> measured as being slow. >The 9,192,631,774+ tick is interpreted as running fast..... If the clock ticks once per 9,192,631,774+ cycles, it is running slower than a local Cs clock ticking once per 9,192,631,770 cycles. This should be obvious. >the 4+ ticks serves to correct this running fast and making the GPS >running at the same rate as the ground clock. But not until it gets into orbit! Remember I was talking about the satellite BEFORE LAUNCH, it's still on the ground. >> After launch, a theoretical astronaut with a Cs clock with him and >> floating next to the satellite will *still* see the 9,192,631,770 signal >> as keeping perfect time with his Cs clock and the 9,192,631,774+ tick is >> still slow. >The passage of 9,192,631,774+ ticks on the GPS is corresponded to the >passage of 9,192,631,770 ticks on the ground clock. 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. >> Meanwhile, people on the ground will measure the 9,192,631,770 signal as >> running too fast but the 9,192,631,774+ signal keeps perfect time. This is >> because the slow signal was slowed down by the EXACT AMOUNT necessary to >> do so, by design. >> Note that nothing was "reset" on the satellite. Nothing was done to it >> except actually launching it into orbit. >> > This is designed to make the GPS accumulating redefines GPS second at >> >the same rate as the ground clock. >> There is no "redefining" the second. There is exactly one definition of a >> second in science/engineering, which is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs >> radiation from a LOCAL clock. >> >> 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. >> >So adding 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second >> There is no "GPS second" so that phrase is nonsense. >> > is designed to make the GPS accumulating clock seconds at the same rate >> >as the ground clock and thus making the GPS running at the same rate as >> >the ground clock in terms of absolute time.. >> "Absolute time". I told you several times that we're discussing SR, not >> Galilean relativity, with its "t' = t" statement, which means that time is >> the same for everyone, anywhere in the universe. In other words, no such >> thing as "absolute time" in SR or GR. >So that means that a clock second is a universal interval of time. No, it says the exact opposite. There *is* no absolute time that is universal everywhere. That (t' = t) is a Galilean concept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 00:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a22049b9-7360-4a37-af06-64782828442b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476606 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps7kml$n5o$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476621 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 15:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c471e261-a996-4ed4-8c9b-228f714e8033@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476743 |
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, against moronic prophecies of your idiot guru, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps7pmk$1v4d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476749 |
mlwozniak wrote: > 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, against > moronic prophecies of your idiot guru, right? Exactly, those are prophecies, not predictions. Predictions ones make locally, however they are making prophecies non-locally. Nothing changed, folks. Same occultists masqueraded as wannabe scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web