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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpnet$12p5$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476309 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:18:14 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 11:43:05 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' >> >>>> First you claim that "SR" says something that it does not say >>>> (at least you do not provide any evidence), and then >> >>> I said that SR (relativity) claims that: a clock second >>> (9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation) is the same >> >> No idiot ken. Stop diverting. You said: >> >> "According to SR: >> A clock second is a universal interval of time." >> >> It is that we are talking about. >> Show us evidence that SR says that. > > OK....Why don’t you show us what does SR says? > Why don’t you read a book to discover what SR says rather than just making shit up about it? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b549c1e5-e286-4404-a2a3-dc70f132a071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476309 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:18:14 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > OK....Why don’t you show us what does SR says? Are you retarded? Cant you read? I showed u MANY TIMES in this discussion what SR says. Again, For your limited brain, limit yourself to: It **ONLY** says that x' = (x-vt)g t' = (t-xv/c²)g Where these represent *values* on the *devices*. THAT IS ALL what SR says. SR simply tells you the values on the devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prl1v8$1oc3$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476161 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:41:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >> >> SR doesn’t say that. > > Idiot, fi SR doesn’t say that, then the concept of time dilation is faulty. No, it’s not. And SR still doesn’t say that. > >> >>> >>> 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!!! >>> >> >> Try reading what SR says rather than just making things up. > > If did read what SR says.....I suggest that you read what SR says. No you didn’t. You can’t quote anything you’ve read. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 05:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19591f3f-21cb-4413-a1a8-72738eb2f3d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476146 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:41:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > SR doesn’t say that. So what does SR says? So are you saying that SR doesn’t say that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the primes clock does not contain the same amount of TIME as 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on 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!!! > > > > Try reading what SR says rather than just making things up. Bullshit meter went off the scale !!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prnanq$15df$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476208 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:41:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >> >> SR doesn’t say that. > > So what does SR says? > So are you saying that SR doesn’t say that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 > radiation on the primes clock does not contain the same amount of TIME as > 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the unprimed clock? SR doesn’t say ANYTHING about how much time something contains. It’s just a nonsense statement you’ve made up. If you want to know what SR does say, STOP GUESSING AND FILLING YOUR HEAD WITH WRONG NOISE. >> >>> >>> 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!!! >>> >> >> Try reading what SR says rather than just making things up. > > Bullshit meter went off the scale !!!! > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2987a3b0-ba6f-4a21-8930-d00bfcc0c40e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476229 |
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:37:01 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:41:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >> > >> SR doesn’t say that. > > > > So what does SR says? > > So are you saying that SR doesn’t say that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 > > radiation on the primes clock does not contain the same amount of TIME as > > 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the unprimed clock? > > SR doesn’t say ANYTHING about how much time something contains. It’s just a > nonsense statement you’ve made up. What does SR say? All you do is making assertions. > > If you want to know what SR does say, STOP GUESSING AND FILLING YOUR HEAD > WITH WRONG NOISE. > > >> > >>> > >>> 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!!! > >>> > >> > >> Try reading what SR says rather than just making things up. > > > > Bullshit meter went off the scale !!!! > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpnet$12p5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476308 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:37:01 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:41:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>> >>>> SR doesn’t say that. >>> >>> So what does SR says? >>> So are you saying that SR doesn’t say that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 >>> radiation on the primes clock does not contain the same amount of TIME as >>> 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the unprimed clock? >> >> SR doesn’t say ANYTHING about how much time something contains. It’s just a >> nonsense statement you’ve made up. > > What does SR say? All you do is making assertions. Two comments. Not more than a few minutes ago you swore you would not answer any of my posts again. Then a few minutes later you answered one of my posts. You lie, you know you lie, and you can’t help yourself. Second, DON’T ASK HERE what SR says. A newsgroup is not the place to learn what SR says. A book is the place to learn that. Every single time you ask what SR says, I’m more than likely to tell you to read a book. Third, it does absolutely no good to try to discuss SR by making a long series of bad guesses about what it says. You will NEVER get it right that way. > >> >> If you want to know what SR does say, STOP GUESSING AND FILLING YOUR HEAD >> WITH WRONG NOISE. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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!!! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Try reading what SR says rather than just making things up. >>> >>> Bullshit meter went off the scale !!!! >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prpp2g$j0i$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476315 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> SR doesn’t say ANYTHING about how much time something contains. It’s just a >>> nonsense statement you’ve made up. >> >> What does SR say? All you do is making assertions. ... >Second, DON’T ASK HERE what SR says. A newsgroup is not the place to learn >what SR says. A book is the place to learn that. Every single time you ask >what SR says, I’m more than likely to tell you to read a book. Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat it for you. x' = gamma(x-vt) t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That is all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any universal time which is the same everywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 10:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29c3d4ae-e64f-4bf3-a313-792d992bfd76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476321 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > >>> SR doesn’t say ANYTHING about how much time something contains. It’s just a > >>> nonsense statement you’ve made up. > >> > >> What does SR say? All you do is making assertions. > ... > >Second, DON’T ASK HERE what SR says. A newsgroup is not the place to learn > >what SR says. A book is the place to learn that. Every single time you ask > >what SR says, I’m more than likely to tell you to read a book. > > Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you > are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. > > Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat > it for you. > > x' = gamma(x-vt) > t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) > where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). So according to this (the LT) a non-local t’ clock does not accumulate clock seconds at the same rate as the local unprimed clock. That refute your claim that all clocks accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. > > That is all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any universal time which > is the same everywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1603b687-6d2f-4bed-9fe4-07cd1cc74008@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476334 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > x' = gamma(x-vt) > > t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) > > where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > > So according to this (the LT) a non-local t’ clock does not > accumulate clock seconds at the same rate <snip> Nowhere in the formulas above do you see the words 'local', 'clock seconds', 'rate' etc... YO just made those up and attributed some interpretations to them. Those words dont belong to SR and SR says nothing about them. Stop making things up. SR ONLY says: For your limited brain, limit yourself to: It **ONLY** says that x' = (x-vt)g t' = (t-xv/c²)g Where these represent *values* on the *devices*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prsebl$6j3$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476334 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you >> are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. >> Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat >> it for you. >> x' = gamma(x-vt) >> t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) >> where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >So according to this (the LT) a non-local t' clock does not accumulate >clock seconds at the same rate as the local unprimed clock. No, it means each sees the other's clock as running at a different rate. Also note that if you swap x and x' (and -v for v) which swaps the two clocks/observers, you'll see the other observer sees the first observer's clock as running slow. (gamma is unchanged) In other words, according to SR, A sees B's clock as running slow and B sees A's clock as running slow. > That refute your claim that all clocks accumulate clock seconds at the >same rate. No, all clocks LOCAL to each other tick at the same rate. >> That is all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any universal time which >> is the same everywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d8f0ddd6-436a-4342-a350-93aefb82f453@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476422 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:09:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you > >> are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. > > >> Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat > >> it for you. > > >> x' = gamma(x-vt) > >> t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) > >> where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > > >So according to this (the LT) a non-local t' clock does not accumulate > >clock seconds at the same rate as the local unprimed clock. > > No, it means each sees the other’s clock as running at a different rate. You keep on saying that they see each other as running slow. There is no “SEE”....there is prediction. > > Also note that if you swap x and x' (and -v for v) which swaps the two > clocks/observers, you'll see the other observer sees the first observer's > clock as running slow. (gamma is unchanged) > In other words, according to SR, A sees B's clock as running slow and B > sees A’s clock as running slow. Mathematical manipulations are not “see”. Also such manipulations are not proof of the actual rate of a moving clock. The problem with SR is that it have one set of equations and every observer uses the same set of equations to predict the rate of a moving clock and the result is that they “see” each other as running slow. IRT have no such problem. > > > That refute your claim that all clocks accumulate clock seconds at the > >same rate. > > No, all clocks LOCAL to each other tick at the same rate. > > >> That is all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any universal time which > >> is the same everywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13d2b04d-31b3-4102-9668-f9e6bd9ea6a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476495 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:09:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > No, it means each sees the other’s clock as running at a different rate. > > You keep on saying that they see each other as running slow. > There is no “SEE”....there is prediction. Correct. They, as you, should not use the word "see". And not only prediction; it is actually verified. Dont forget what I told you: We measure *values*; we log values. We can use the LT's to predict those values.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prvn8b$p0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476495 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:09:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you >> >> are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. >> >> Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat >> >> it for you. >> >> x' = gamma(x-vt) >> >> t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) >> >> where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >> >So according to this (the LT) a non-local t' clock does not accumulate >> >clock seconds at the same rate as the local unprimed clock. >> No, it means each sees the other's clock as running at a different rate. >You keep on saying that they see each other as running slow. There is no >"SEE"....there is prediction. There is MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION. In science, they are king. Prediction is worthless if actual observation does not agree with the prediction. In the case of SR, the math makes a prediction, which just happens to agree with actual observation/measurement EVERY SINGLE TIME when SR is valid. So the SR math (prediction) is NOT worthless. >> Also note that if you swap x and x' (and -v for v) which swaps the two >> clocks/observers, you'll see the other observer sees the first observer's >> clock as running slow. (gamma is unchanged) >> In other words, according to SR, A sees B's clock as running slow and B >> sees A's clock as running slow. >Mathematical manipulations are not "see". Yes the math is a prediction, however, the prediction agrees with actual observation/measurement EVERY SINGLE TIME when SR is valid. > Also such manipulations are not proof of the actual rate of a moving >clock. Yes, the measurement is the proof. The math is a model which makes predictions. But so far, the math predictions agree with observations and measurements EVERY SINGLE TIME. > The problem with SR is that it have one set of equations and every >observer uses the same set of equations to predict the rate of a moving >clock That is a feature, not a bug. Or a "problem". You have one set of equations, you have one answer. Perfect. You use that single answer in doing whatever you were doing. > and the result is that they "see" each other as running slow. And this matches observation. > IRT have no such problem. IRT is loaded with problems. That's why it is such a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08c6221c-1248-47c8-9f02-688e64f59e96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476521 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 4:59:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:09:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >> Odd is right, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand SR at all, and you > >> >> are making up crap to fill in for your ignorance. You need to LEARN SR. > > >> >> Since others have obliged you by telling you what SR says, I will repeat > >> >> it for you. > > >> >> x' = gamma(x-vt) > >> >> t' = gamma(t-xv/c^2) > >> >> where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > > >> >So according to this (the LT) a non-local t' clock does not accumulate > >> >clock seconds at the same rate as the local unprimed clock. > > >> No, it means each sees the other's clock as running at a different rate. > > >You keep on saying that they see each other as running slow. There is no > >"SEE"....there is prediction. > > There is MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION. In science, they are king. > Prediction is worthless if actual observation does not agree with the > prediction. What are the actual MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION that enable them to agree with the predictions? Are you saying that MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION are predictions? > > In the case of SR, the math makes a prediction, which just happens to > agree with actual observation/measurement EVERY SINGLE TIME when SR is > valid. So the SR math (prediction) is NOT worthless. > > >> Also note that if you swap x and x' (and -v for v) which swaps the two > >> clocks/observers, you'll see the other observer sees the first observer's > >> clock as running slow. (gamma is unchanged) > >> In other words, according to SR, A sees B's clock as running slow and B > >> sees A's clock as running slow. > > >Mathematical manipulations are not "see". > > Yes the math is a prediction, however, the prediction agrees with actual > observation/measurement EVERY SINGLE TIME when SR is valid. Here you seem to say that MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION are not predictions. How does MEASUREMENT and OBSERVATION are able to give actual number for clock rates of a moving clock? > > > Also such manipulations are not proof of the actual rate of a moving > >clock. > > Yes, the measurement is the proof. The math is a model which makes > predictions. But so far, the math predictions agree with observations and > measurements EVERY SINGLE TIME. > > > The problem with SR is that it have one set of equations and every > >observer uses the same set of equations to predict the rate of a moving > >clock > > That is a feature, not a bug. Or a "problem". You have one set of > equations, you have one answer. Perfect. You use that single answer in > doing whatever you were doing. > > > and the result is that they "see" each other as running slow. > > And this matches observation. > > > IRT have no such problem. > > IRT is loaded with problems. That's why it is such a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 09:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64f2d791-cbca-43e3-9234-7a0716f7684f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476308 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > What does SR say? We have told you MANY TIMES what SR says. Again, for the seventh time: For your limited brain, limit yourself to: It **ONLY** says that x' = (x-vt)g t' = (t-xv/c²)g Where these represent *values* on the *devices*. Nowhere in there are there any mention of Cs, nor 9,192,631,770, nor 'seconds' etc. We are free to use any names & units and values we want; that wont change the above formulas, wont change what SR says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f4a14ae-ebd8-4c8d-a26c-fb27913f75f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476145 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:45:18 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > According to SR: > A clock second is a universal interval of time. No, that is not true. Nowhere does SR make such a claim. Can you quota a passage where SR uses the expression "universal interval of time' ? No? See, those are YOUR made up words, not SR's, nor of any author discussing SR. > In other words the passage of a clock second in the primed... And now you are just putting your interpretation on some invented claim you make of SR. See, all this rubbish is YOUR doing, your imagination, not SR's. Time (on a given clock) is simply the value on that clock, and that has nothing to do with SR. SR just predicts the value on a clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prkrvt$1cbi$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476147 |
rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:45:18 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> According to SR: A clock second is a universal interval of time. > > > No, that is not true. Nowhere does SR make such a claim. > Can you quota a passage where SR uses the expression "universal interval > of time' ? No Where exactly is SR not saying the above?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 05:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e8b5a7a-766d-4674-a567-e2b3f9d99090@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476147 |
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:44:06 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:45:18 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > According to SR: > > A clock second is a universal interval of time. > > > No, that is not true. Nowhere does SR make such a claim. > Can you quota a passage where SR uses the expression "universal interval of time' ? No? See, those are YOUR made up words, not SR’s, nor of any author discussing SR. SR claims that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the primed clock contains the same amount of TIME as 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation on the unprimed clock. That means that a clock second is defined as a universal interval of time.....no? > > > In other words the passage of a clock second in the primed... > > And now you are just putting your interpretation on some invented claim you make of SR. See, all this rubbish is YOUR doing, your imagination, not SR's. > > Time (on a given clock) is simply the value on that clock, and that has nothing to do with SR. SR just predicts the value on a clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 06:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7dc7614f-0f94-46b4-b519-6f6349147338@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476209 |
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:46:06 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:44:06 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > No, that is not true. Nowhere does SR make such a claim. > > Can you quota a passage where SR uses the expression "universal > > interval of time' ? Still no references/quotes to support your claim? You are making yourself look like a liar again. > SR claims that 9,192,631,770 Hz of Cs 133 radiation... SR makes no such claims. Its is YOU, with your messed up interpretations, that claim that. Keep it simple idiot ken. Consider SR to *only* say: x' = (x-vt)g t' = (t-xv/c²)g Where these represent *values* on the *devices*. Nowhere is written in there The words "universal", "time", "9,192,631,770 ", "Cs" etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web