Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:25:21 -0500 Message-ID: <57BB9844.7851@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:26:44 -0700 From: The Starmaker 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> <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> <57B9E2C5.3CFA@ix.netcom.com> <57B9F6A4.7CB8@ix.netcom.com> <121ffd45-0028-4c63-b43c-39358f33559d@googlegroups.com> <57BA2631.7D1A@ix.netcom.com> <8b17f79a-dc94-4794-9ac9-58cf2dc96aa7@googlegroups.com> <27ea6469-d182-403d-af5b-803ac35d846f@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-woeTDu5JBqQy8C4QLq4j6ZEialkfqfpc57DaFIDx5tanI+AlhJYWBt9ptcxnoe12ENdeNUfvMx607s+!JxqyjI76f4x12whnD1zkRVmnhnxFvIeWKOnt9YiJET/K/lUSTWVz00kf+JvZJNZvDCk00Yi4o0iU!RfSLxlyLvbQ= 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: 3428 X-Received-Bytes: 3581 X-Received-Body-CRC: 2252699326 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:594260 xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:06:02 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 6:06:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:44:08 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:06:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > xxein: A higher clock ticks faster than a lower clock. OK. How fast is it ticking when/as it falls past the lower clock? Faster or slower? > > > > > > > > > Well, of course slower since it is now the lower clock and the other > > > clock is higher now, so now it's ticking faster. > > > > > > > > > No math is required...not even logic. > > > > xxein: Let's go with something I posted earlier. Suppose the falling clock was traveling at .9c? Don't you think the lower (moving) clock would have a slower time rate than the stationary one above it? > > <<<<< > xxein: Geez I must have been tired. I don''t know why I wrote the last lines. While true - they were not what I wanted to write. Based on the way you write (think) I think what I should have written, you wouldn't have understood anyway. You asked one question... On the same time scale, what length of time is needed to record this clock tick rate? somebody gave you an answer at the 'relativity' group: 2000 picoseconds Is that answer you're looking for?