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 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 04:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prtpmv$4qs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476463 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:20:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:04:00 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> >> > So are you saying that every SR observer does not use the same >> >> > definition for his local proper second? >> >> Each Observer in SR has a set of clocks and rulers. Clocks are used to measure >> >> elapsed periods of time of events. Rulers are used to measure distances. >> >OK, does his set of clocks located next to him? Or are they at a long distance? >> Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks >> are next to the events whose time is being measured. >> >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). >> >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time >> >> of events and distances. >> >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! >> Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers >> since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. >Can you name one actual helper in an experiment done to date? Just about all of them. Any experiment where some sort of remote sensor is used. > What if the clock is at the moon? Do you send a helper to the moon to >make the local measurement? Well, if a clock is there, then some other machinery went along with it to do the measurements. NASA packs everything necessary for a mission onto a single space probe for example. >> >No such helpers ever.... >> You don't get to say that. >Yes I do get to say that. OK you can say whatever you want, but you don't get to create arbitrary restrictions that disallow them. >> >do you mean the LT predicts? >> No, he doesn't. >> >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks >> >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 >> >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the >> >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. >> >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 >> >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second >> >is a universal interval of time???? >> No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time >> definition. >Since a clock second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 >radiation in all frames of reference, then by definition a clock second >is a universal interval of time. Once again you didn't use the word LOCAL where it needs to be used, and 'Local' conflicts with 'Universal'. And again, it appears that you are implicitly assuming a Galilean universal time the same for everyone in the universe. This is SR, not Galilean physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0e08e2f4-2c07-44dc-b59b-4ec93c237ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476424 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:20:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:04:00 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2018, 15:21:30 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > >> > So are you saying that every SR observer does not use the same > >> > definition for his local proper second? > > >> Each Observer in SR has a set of clocks and rulers. Clocks are used to measure > >> elapsed periods of time of events. Rulers are used to measure distances. > > >OK, does his set of clocks located next to him? Or are they at a long distance? > > Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks > are next to the events whose time is being measured. How can it be local when the far clocks are located 300,000 km away from the observer? > > >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). > >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time > >> of events and distances. > > >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! > > Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers > since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. Can you cite an actual experiment that such helper is used to make measurement of a distant clock? > > >No such helpers ever.... > > You don't get to say that. > > >do you mean the LT predicts? > > No, he doesn't. > > >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks > >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 > >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the > >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. > > >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 > >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second > >is a universal interval of time???? > > No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time > definition. Why not? The definition for the clock second is universal. > > >>If you use a > >> Rubidium atomic clock, the frequency for one second is 6,834,682,610.904324 Hz. > > >> The period between two events is measured in a certain number of seconds (as > >> indicated by the given local clock used in the measuring). > > >> This, obviously, has nothing to do with the time coordinate used (t or t').
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prvo6v$p0$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476497 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:20:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:04:00 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> >> > So are you saying that every SR observer does not use the same >> >> > definition for his local proper second? >> >> Each Observer in SR has a set of clocks and rulers. Clocks are used to measure >> >> elapsed periods of time of events. Rulers are used to measure distances. >> >OK, does his set of clocks located next to him? Or are they at a long distance? >> Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks >> are next to the events whose time is being measured. >How can it be local when the far clocks are located 300,000 km away from >the observer? That's why the "helper" is mentioned. The "helper" is local to the clock 300,000 km away and it uses the clock local to it when proper time is needed in a measurement at the location of the clock. >> >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). >> >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time >> >> of events and distances. >> >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! >> Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers >> since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. >Can you cite an actual experiment that such helper is used to make >measurement of a distant clock? Again, just about all of them. When something moves at v from A to B. If the observer is at A, the helper would be at B. >> >No such helpers ever.... >> You don't get to say that. >> >do you mean the LT predicts? >> No, he doesn't. >> >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks >> >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 >> >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the >> >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. >> >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 >> >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second >> >is a universal interval of time???? >> No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time >> definition. >Why not? The definition for the clock second is universal. Because every SR observer defines a second as 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a LOCAL cesium clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a36fe5ce-66b2-4af4-8b38-3b7059aa1da0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476523 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:20:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:04:00 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > >> >> > So are you saying that every SR observer does not use the same > >> >> > definition for his local proper second? > > >> >> Each Observer in SR has a set of clocks and rulers. Clocks are used to measure > >> >> elapsed periods of time of events. Rulers are used to measure distances. > > >> >OK, does his set of clocks located next to him? Or are they at a long distance? > > >> Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks > >> are next to the events whose time is being measured. > > >How can it be local when the far clocks are located 300,000 km away from > >the observer? > > That's why the "helper" is mentioned. The "helper" is local to the clock > 300,000 km away and it uses the clock local to it when proper time is > needed in a measurement at the location of the clock.is no helper..... There is no helper 300,000 km away. The LT products the proper clock rate of the distant clock. > > >> >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). > >> >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time > >> >> of events and distances. > > >> >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! > > >> Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers > >> since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. > > >Can you cite an actual experiment that such helper is used to make > >measurement of a distant clock? > > Again, just about all of them. When something moves at v from A to B. > If the observer is at A, the helper would be at B. What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? > > >> >No such helpers ever.... > > >> You don't get to say that. > > >> >do you mean the LT predicts? > > >> No, he doesn't. > > >> >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks > >> >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 > >> >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the > >> >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. > > >> >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 > >> >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second > >> >is a universal interval of time???? > > >> No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time > >> definition. > > >Why not? The definition for the clock second is universal. > > Because every SR observer defines a second as 9,192,631,770 times the > period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of a LOCAL cesium clock. So how is that refutes the claim that according to SR that a clock second is a universal interval of time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 14:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6755fe55-a442-4a15-8aec-d9a4259a7622@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476595 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:26:36 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? Yes idiot ken, a clock is a helper? Dont you know the meaning of the words used??? I even told you many times that any device is a 'helper'. A helper is any logging device, be it a person or device! This is also explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588c7205-799c-4b6d-a00e-2ce661a90515@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476603 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:26:36 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? > > Yes idiot ken, a clock is a helper? Dont you know the meaning of the words used??? I even told you many times that any device is a 'helper'. A helper is any logging device, be it a person or device! This is also explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any?? Moron, there is a big difference between a person and a device. A person reports what he sees of the actual rate of a local clock. Whereas a distant clock requires the use of certain theory (SR/GR and the LT) to predict the rate of a distant clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 07:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b3287e9-c772-4232-b2ff-483ebe8d10c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476779 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:39:22 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > Yes idiot ken, a clock is a helper... Dont you know the meaning > > of the words used?... a 'helper'. A helper is any logging device, > be it a person or device! This is also explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any?? > Moron, there is a big difference between a person and a device. Irrelevant. We are discussing the meaning of 'helper'. A 'helper' is *defined* as ANY logging device, be it a person or a 'device'. > A person reports what he sees of the actual rate of a local clock. A person notes, logs, 'sees' and may report this to others. > Whereas a distant clock requires the use of certain theory No. The clock (device) reports, logs, 'sees' and reports tis to others. > (SR/GR and the LT) to predict the rate of a distant clock. The clock does not need this. WE need a theory to predict what the device will log. Theory or not, the device will display what it displays. > This is also explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any?? No answer? Are we then to conclude that you never read any literature on SR, where they explain that a 'helper' is any logging device? You never saw that in any books??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psa6c6$1onq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476779 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:26:36 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>> What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? >> >> Yes idiot ken, a clock is a helper? Dont you know the meaning of the >> words used??? I even told you many times that any device is a 'helper'. >> A helper is any logging device, be it a person or device! This is also >> explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any?? > > Moron, there is a big difference between a person and a device. A person > reports what he sees of the actual rate of a local clock. Whereas a > distant clock requires the use of certain theory (SR/GR and the LT) to > predict the rate of a distant clock. > A distant clock can RECORD what time it is when events happen. A distant clock can TRANSMIT what it recorded. It is not necessary for a human to be present watching the clock. Idiot. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <psdc41$14pd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476811 |
On 11/11/2018 4:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:26:36 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> >>>> What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? >>> >>> Yes idiot ken, a clock is a helper? Dont you know the meaning of the >>> words used??? I even told you many times that any device is a 'helper'. >>> A helper is any logging device, be it a person or device! This is also >>> explained in most SR books. Havent you ever read any?? >> >> Moron, there is a big difference between a person and a device. A person >> reports what he sees of the actual rate of a local clock. Whereas a >> distant clock requires the use of certain theory (SR/GR and the LT) to >> predict the rate of a distant clock. >> > > A distant clock can RECORD what time it is when events happen. A distant > clock can TRANSMIT what it recorded. > > It is not necessary for a human to be present watching the clock. > > Idiot. > You are the idiot, odd. Everybody in science knows that the clock does not even exist until someone watches it! That is religious truth!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 05:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps8dqa$p3m$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476595 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks >> >> are next to the events whose time is being measured. >> >> >How can it be local when the far clocks are located 300,000 km away from >> >the observer? >> >> That's why the "helper" is mentioned. The "helper" is local to the clock >> 300,000 km away and it uses the clock local to it when proper time is >> needed in a measurement at the location of the clock.is no helper..... >There is no helper 300,000 km away. The LT products the proper clock rate of the distant clock. Why not? >> >> >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). >> >> >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time >> >> >> of events and distances. >> >> >> >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! >> >> >> Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers >> >> since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. >> >> >Can you cite an actual experiment that such helper is used to make >> >measurement of a distant clock? >> >> Again, just about all of them. When something moves at v from A to B. >> If the observer is at A, the helper would be at B. >What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? Who ever said the helpers were people? Most helpers are some sort of measuring instruments. "Just a clock" isn't really sufficient, in my example the helper also measures the position of something at the time on the clock. >> >> >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks >> >> >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 >> >> >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the >> >> >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. >> >> >> >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 >> >> >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second >> >> >is a universal interval of time???? >> >> >> No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time >> >> definition. >> >> >Why not? The definition for the clock second is universal. >> >> Because every SR observer defines a second as 9,192,631,770 times the >> period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a LOCAL cesium clock. >So how is that refutes the claim that according to SR that a clock >second is a universal interval of time? Because the time is that on a LOCAL Cs clock! If the observer is moving relative to the clock, it is not considered local and he can't use the moving clock as a local reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 23:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f36c03e-a3e6-4ea1-ad6d-eb0051c2729e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476760 |
On Sunday, 11 November 2018 06:13:48 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> Part of the definition of proper time is the clock is local, so the clocks > >> >> are next to the events whose time is being measured. > >> > >> >How can it be local when the far clocks are located 300,000 km away from > >> >the observer? > >> > >> That's why the "helper" is mentioned. The "helper" is local to the clock > >> 300,000 km away and it uses the clock local to it when proper time is > >> needed in a measurement at the location of the clock.is no helper..... > > >There is no helper 300,000 km away. The LT products the proper clock rate of the distant clock. > > Why not? > > >> >> >> Each observer can also use a set of helpers (each one with clocks and rulers). > >> >> >> Each helper can use their clocks and rulers to measure elapsed periods of time > >> >> >> of events and distances. > >> > >> >> >ROTFLOL....helppers indeed! > >> > >> >> Added to make sure what is being measured is local. Local to the helpers > >> >> since the main observer cannot be in multiple places. > >> > >> >Can you cite an actual experiment that such helper is used to make > >> >measurement of a distant clock? > >> > >> Again, just about all of them. When something moves at v from A to B. > >> If the observer is at A, the helper would be at B. > > >What if B is not a person? If B just a clock would it qualify as a helper? > > Who ever said the helpers were people? Most helpers are some sort of > measuring instruments. "Just a clock" isn't really sufficient, in my > example the helper also measures the position of something at the time > on the clock. > > >> >> >> Eve ry observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks > >> >> >> measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 > >> >> >> times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the > >> >> >> two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. > >> > >> >> >OK, since every SR observer defines his clock second to have 9,192,631,770 > >> >> >periods of Cs 133 radiation, doesn't this mean that a clock second > >> >> >is a universal interval of time???? > >> > >> >> No, since 'universal' conflicts with 'local', part of the proper time > >> >> definition. > >> > >> >Why not? The definition for the clock second is universal. > >> > >> Because every SR observer defines a second as 9,192,631,770 times the > >> period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two > >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a LOCAL cesium clock. > > >So how is that refutes the claim that according to SR that a clock > >second is a universal interval of time? > > Because the time is that on a LOCAL Cs clock! And comparing indications of a LOCAL Cs clock of the ground GPS base and indications of a LOCAL Cs clock on a GPS satellite we're getting t'=t. Good bye, The Shit of ingenious Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 05:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62fc62da-0fb0-476c-8eec-47b46008a02d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476360 |
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 01:04:00 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: > Every observer (and helpers) know that a second is what their local clocks > measure. If they are using Cesium atomic clocks, one second is 9,192,631,770 > times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the > two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. And this is where the prophecies of your idiot guru have failed. Real observers from real world follow the commands of common sense instead following the commands of morons like you and they have set clocks (caesium clocks) differently. Anyone can check it at GPS. Thus - the mistake of your idiot guru was underestimating the common sense prejudices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prnann$15df$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476221 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto 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. >> >> Your reasoning is what is faulty here instead. >> >> First you claim that "SR" says something that it does not say (at least you >> do not provide any evidence), and then you say that if it does not say what >> you claim it says, then it is faulty. > > I said that SR (relativity) claims that: a clock second (9,192,631,770 > periods of Cs 133 radiation) is the same for everyone. It doesn’t say that. Make another bad guess. > .....so that means that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > Can you explain why this is a faulty statement? > >> >> By the same "logic", I can claim that you say that there are pink unicorns >> grazing on the Moon (which in some sense you do; but I digress), and when >> you say that you do not say that, then I call you an idiot and say that >> *because* you did not say that your concept of pink unicorns on the Moon >> is faulty. >> >> Can you see the problem with such an argument? >> >>>> 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. >> >> That is not even proper English. >> >> -- >> PointedEars >> >> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2cdee7db-99aa-4ea0-ae55-28fd25153ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476226 |
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:36:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto 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. > >> > >> Your reasoning is what is faulty here instead. > >> > >> First you claim that "SR" says something that it does not say (at least you > >> do not provide any evidence), and then you say that if it does not say what > >> you claim it says, then it is faulty. > > > > I said that SR (relativity) claims that: a clock second (9,192,631,770 > > periods of Cs 133 radiation) is the same for everyone. > > It doesn’t say that. Make another bad guess. So you are saying that every SR’s clock second is not defined as having 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation? So according to you what does SR says? > > > .....so that means that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > > Can you explain why this is a faulty statement? > > > >> > >> By the same "logic", I can claim that you say that there are pink unicorns > >> grazing on the Moon (which in some sense you do; but I digress), and when > >> you say that you do not say that, then I call you an idiot and say that > >> *because* you did not say that your concept of pink unicorns on the Moon > >> is faulty. > >> > >> Can you see the problem with such an argument? > >> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> That is not even proper English. > >> > >> -- > >> PointedEars > >> > >> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c69eca09-c46a-444e-8a9d-1c36619bd928@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476302 |
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 9:26:50 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > So according to you what does SR says? Cant u read idiot ken, I already told u what SR 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*. 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prplli$v8h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476302 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:36:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto 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. >>>> >>>> Your reasoning is what is faulty here instead. >>>> >>>> First you claim that "SR" says something that it does not say (at least you >>>> do not provide any evidence), and then you say that if it does not say what >>>> you claim it says, then it is faulty. >>> >>> I said that SR (relativity) claims that: a clock second (9,192,631,770 >>> periods of Cs 133 radiation) is the same for everyone. >> >> It doesn’t say that. Make another bad guess. > > So you are saying that every SR’s clock second is not defined as having > 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation? > So according to you what does SR says? First of all, the standard for a second has nothing to do with SR. The standard for a second applies just as much to Newtonian physics as it does to quantum mechanics it to SR. Second, you keep missing or omitting the word LOCAL, which is essential in SR. This has been pointed out at least a half a dozen times to you in the last few days. > >> >>> .....so that means that a clock second is a universal interval of time. >>> Can you explain why this is a faulty statement? >>> >>>> >>>> By the same "logic", I can claim that you say that there are pink unicorns >>>> grazing on the Moon (which in some sense you do; but I digress), and when >>>> you say that you do not say that, then I call you an idiot and say that >>>> *because* you did not say that your concept of pink unicorns on the Moon >>>> is faulty. >>>> >>>> Can you see the problem with such an argument? >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That is not even proper English. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 00:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64e7cc97-b6df-4056-badf-3a87713c70dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476306 |
On Monday, 5 November 2018 15:55:49 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > First of all, the standard for a second has nothing to do with SR. :) Do you have any experimental evidence for that, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prqa7g$6fn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476302 |
kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:36:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > I said that SR (relativity) claims that: a clock second >> > (9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation) is the same for everyone. >> >> It doesn’t say that. Make another bad guess. > > So you are saying that every SR’s clock second is not defined as having > 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation? So according to you what does > SR says? Odd is beating a dead horse. For everyone, understood as locally. You are 100% correct. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a10d2c55-4480-42a3-97de-6c2c1f7a4539@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476221 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 07:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4472c6d1-2d5a-4f03-98a0-46af4c8208de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476233 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web