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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:11:05 -0500 Message-ID: <57BF42FA.1018@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:11:54 -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> <57BB9844.7851@ix.netcom.com> <77f0e42a-4a50-4c54-a067-3ce117cc1e72@googlegroups.com> <57BC731E.5669@ix.netcom.com> <5f0d46d7-bca0-4586-9704-1a92408c6468@googlegroups.com> <57BF2973.378F@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 92 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-Co1ZdeI2JvvoErJg/SHWrPQxDd4IWoYuZfdb8M7z8R0PodtMeA8v64q1+jW5G6pJZbtyl8roWHHDTay!sbtPuseyaYQydGBXX3wHLg72cqReoopzhn7qRlsmMPS+LvmwMMFO7NA3cObDgyf6AEkjbZelRHbD!PxGeW1DbDSY= 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: 5714 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:594679 xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:22:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:25:30 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > xxein: I don't know. Should it be? > > > > > > > > > > > > Something is wrong...no one seems to understands your questions, and you don't seem to understand their answers. > > > > > > xxein: You are free to not worry and go about your whatever. > > > > > > your game is over. > > xxein: Do you think physics is a game? Bye. You asked two questions: How accurately can a clock tick rate be measured (secs/sec)? On the same time scale, what length of time is needed to record this clock tick rate? This is the answer in the relativity group that was given by Alan Folmsbee: How accurately can a clock tick rate be measured (secs/sec)? Answer: 60 picosecond accuracy is easy to get with common electronics you can afford. On the same time scale, what length of time is needed to record this clock tick rate? Answer: 2000 picoseconds Here is a copy pf the original just in case you somehow missed it: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics.relativity/bjz657yYbJw/AJlH6hA7BQAJ My question was: Is that answer you were looking for???? Is the answer given to you...satifactory? It's either, Yes or No.