Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #594046
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:19:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <57B9E2C5.3CFA@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| Date | Sun, 21 Aug 2016 10:20:05 -0700 |
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
| Reply-To | starmaker@ix.netcom.com |
| X-Mailer | Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: clock rate |
| References | <05937284-e0db-4343-8360-48fd4ce5c0b8@googlegroups.com> <np5hh9$c8o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fa972fe0-d95d-42b0-aa09-9c0a72eea7a8@googlegroups.com> <np7196$a1l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0c5a50ac-3802-45b1-b832-447d8e49ff58@googlegroups.com> <37139726-ab06-4f5e-ba67-97a2da657e8d@googlegroups.com> <2646195c-06b1-4df5-aed8-d89b90391ada@googlegroups.com> <57B8D4C1.4D25@ix.netcom.com> <a331db0e-7157-4ac6-b0b5-aea95d9ba3ec@googlegroups.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Lines | 28 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 108.219.229.47 |
| X-Trace | sv3-q9BT9ZiXeffXS3QFgx4SSuQJLHuxpm6G3dX10qg7O7POwvKC/1rpDLehidrMpNwjORZa/h6vbsx7vgn!a0UP76Jv8rJ48RWUwKDGdFKuGX5+cq41/At/WELGYSW1ao7oC2J56vn4CoefsNWV4cMhSkB07Uwe!GUY2KTRMXNk= |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 2467 |
| Xref | csiph.com sci.physics:594046 |
Show key headers only | View raw
xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:06:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Everyone knows...you're the better model, xx(ein)Stein. > > > > > > If the two clocks are falling towards the earth...at the sametime..the earth is falling up at the sametime towards the clock. Did you figure that in? > > xxein: I know of that but that is not the scenario I posed. Does that enable you to answer my simple question? > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?" And assume a non-rotating Earth. And for more simplicity - an isolated Earth. what would happen if you performed the expirement on the moon? the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started already in the future. relativity has nothing to do with accelration...so it doesn't matter.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 16:08 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-18 18:48 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 19:15 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-19 08:23 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 11:34 -0700
Re: clock rate "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:39 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 13:11 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 20:40 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 07:08 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 23:29 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 08:48 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:10 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 11:29 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:48 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:16 +0200
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:25 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 16:19 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 00:39 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 07:52 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:52 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 07:55 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 09:28 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:50 +0200
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:23 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:31 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 11:41 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 08:38 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:01 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:11 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 10:19 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:29 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:43 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:47 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 08:49 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:34 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:58 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:42 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 08:53 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:46 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:20 +0200
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 09:13 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:56 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 12:29 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:37 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-20 15:08 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 15:42 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:20 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:28 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 11:44 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:56 -0700
Re: clock rate "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:09 -0700
Re: clock rate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-21 13:43 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 13:57 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 15:07 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 17:05 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-22 11:48 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:58 -0500
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-22 17:26 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-23 05:00 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0500
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-23 09:00 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-24 14:43 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-25 10:22 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-25 11:31 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-25 12:11 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-25 17:31 -0500
Re: clock rate "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 03:11 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:47 -0700
Re: clock rate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 12:41 +1000
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 22:27 -0700
Re: clock rate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:47 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 11:21 -0700
Re: clock rate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 16:10 +1000
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 01:34 -0700
Re: clock rate Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-08-19 07:47 +0200
Re: clock rate Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 10:16 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:02 -0700
csiph-web