Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #593753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-18 16:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-21 11:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9edd6aa7-a74a-416d-bd16-0cbbf077b00a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593918 |
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > ... Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY. But the funniest part is that Pootie thinks that there is no such knowledge outside of THE THEORY. Obviously, he has no answer either way. > > > > I need not to have an answer. > I am neither a theory author, > nor its developer nor its active user. > xxein: You don't have to say you don't know anything. It is obvious. > It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory > before making claim it does not provide any. > xxein: So I have to wait for the theory tell me it doesn't have an answer before I claim it doesn't have an answer? > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: I've been humble with this knowledge for over 25 years and nobody knew about it. So when I say I was humble with this knowledge for over 25 years it makes me a small man and arrogant? Oh! I get it. That's what the old theory said because it was the only true word of a god. I shall now depart and not hinder your wandering any further. All hail to... Where'd he go?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 13:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np9edt$ufg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593924 |
Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>> ... Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY. But the funniest part is that Pootie thinks that there is no such knowledge outside of THE THEORY. Obviously, he has no answer either way. >>> >> >> I need not to have an answer. >> I am neither a theory author, >> nor its developer nor its active user. >> > xxein: You don't have to say you don't know anything. It is obvious. Such a statement disqualifying you from any serious discussion. >> It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory >> before making claim it does not provide any. >> > xxein: So I have to wait for the theory tell me it doesn't have an answer before I claim it doesn't have an answer? No, you have to learnt it and verify your suspicion, before making such a claim. But as you are either lazy or unable to do it, you make an unjustified claim before that. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npcctn$1sop$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #593928 |
On 8/20/2016 6:20 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp >> wrote: >>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>>> ... Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't >>>> come from THE THEORY. But the funniest part is that Pootie >>>> thinks that there is no such knowledge outside of THE THEORY. >>>> Obviously, he has no answer either way. >>>> >>> I need not to have an answer. I am neither a theory author, nor >>> its developer nor its active user. >>> >> xxein: You don't have to say you don't know anything. It is >> obvious. > > Such a statement disqualifying you from any serious discussion. >>> It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory before making claim >>> it does not provide any. >>> >> xxein: So I have to wait for the theory tell me it doesn't have an >> answer before I claim it doesn't have an answer? > > No, you have to learnt it and verify your suspicion, before making > such a claim. > > But as you are either lazy or unable to do it, you make an > unjustified claim before that. > > if he knew the answer(s) he would have posted it by now. the question, answers are more important than personalities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83c0cf9d-405f-4603-92b1-32f0f0da839b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594022 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:13:16 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 8/20/2016 6:20 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp > >> wrote: > >>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>>> ... Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't > >>>> come from THE THEORY. But the funniest part is that Pootie > >>>> thinks that there is no such knowledge outside of THE THEORY. > >>>> Obviously, he has no answer either way. > >>>> > > >>> I need not to have an answer. I am neither a theory author, nor > >>> its developer nor its active user. > >>> > >> xxein: You don't have to say you don't know anything. It is > >> obvious. > > > > Such a statement disqualifying you from any serious discussion. > > >>> It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory before making claim > >>> it does not provide any. > >>> > >> xxein: So I have to wait for the theory tell me it doesn't have an > >> answer before I claim it doesn't have an answer? > > > > No, you have to learnt it and verify your suspicion, before making > > such a claim. > > > > But as you are either lazy or unable to do it, you make an > > unjustified claim before that. > > > > > > if he knew the answer(s) he would have posted it by now. > > the question, answers are more important than personalities xxein: Agreed. But it's fun to play with him. BTW. It's was a 50-50 question and you lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npcod8$eqj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #594032 |
On 8/21/2016 10:56 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:13:16 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: >> On 8/20/2016 6:20 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp >>>> wrote: >>>>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>> >>> But as you are either lazy or unable to do it, you make an >>> unjustified claim before that. >>> >>> >> >> if he knew the answer(s) he would have posted it by now. >> >> the question, answers are more important than personalities > > xxein: Agreed. But it's fun to play with him. > > BTW. It's was a 50-50 question and you lost. > wrong-o, not a toss up at all. eazy-cheesy answer, which I gave you already, you can learn a lot from me but were is your answer ? you shouldn't go around dropping your clock
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0230c6d7-d8e6-48d6-b952-717b2189fe14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594050 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:29:17 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 8/21/2016 10:56 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:13:16 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > >> On 8/20/2016 6:20 AM, Poutnik wrote: > >>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > >>> > >>> But as you are either lazy or unable to do it, you make an > >>> unjustified claim before that. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> if he knew the answer(s) he would have posted it by now. > >> > >> the question, answers are more important than personalities > > > > xxein: Agreed. But it's fun to play with him. > > > > BTW. It's was a 50-50 question and you lost. > > > > wrong-o, not a toss up at all. eazy-cheesy answer, > which I gave you already, you can learn a lot from me > > but were is your answer ? > > > you shouldn't go around dropping your clock xxein: Read more of my replies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B8D4C1.4D25@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #593834 |
xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:39:15 PM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:23:56 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > > > > On 8/18/2016 9:15 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > > > > >> On 8/18/2016 6:08 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > >>> 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? > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> compare velocity vectors, if at same altitude, the rotational velocity > > > > >> by earth is the same, however the falling clock is going faster > > > > >> vertically. therefore the faster one is the stationary one. > > > > > > > > > > xxein: Let's nix the rotation. A non-rotating Earth for whomever else > > > > > might want to give it a try. > > > > > > > > > > Would you be willing to make a sizable wager that a direct experiment > > > > > will prove you to be correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > doent it depend upon how far "somewhere above" is ? if your 100,000 > > > > miles above, then the moving clock has a huge velocity, but if it is 1 > > > > micron above, relitive to the rest of the universe. > > > > > > > > send the money to makesergiorich@paypal.com > > > > > > xxein: No it doesn't depend on far up it starts it's vertical motion. It is > > > still going down past the stationary clock with a velocity. The question is > > > whether it will have a faster or slower time rate when it passes the > > > stationary clock. What if it was going up? > > > > > > You have no means to calculate an answer, so don't bet blindly. > > > > Are you assuming the Earth's gravitational field has some direct effect that wouldn't exist if the "not moving" clock were just sitting in space far from any other massive body? > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > xxein: Yes. Haven't you ever heard of gravitational time dilation? I read around extensively and find that, other than a few obvious empirical tidbits and 'how to calculate' formulas, not much is really known about the deeper science of gravity. > > About 30 yrs ago I became self-forced to tie up a bunch of loose ends (mostly and especially about gravity) and I stumbled into creating a model that has worked ever since. I haven't come across anything quite like it either. Einstein's model (curved space-time) is serviceable but is lacking the means of further proper incite. At best, it leads around rather than to. Like an outside without an inside. Yes! I can be very critical. How and where does Einstein address the simple question I p > > In my model, you don't have to search around for such answers. They're just there like the back of your hand. Regretfully, my knowledge of calculus math is almost non-existent so I can't effectively formalize for the gods of science. I can say that it will be simplified and given new meaning. For this I need outside help. I can be reached by email but don't bother unless you are willing to co-author a paper. Especially don't contact me with criticism for something you know nothing about. 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a331db0e-7157-4ac6-b0b5-aea95d9ba3ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593968 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B9E2C5.3CFA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #593975 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb50687f-9335-4a1b-a61a-4d9a8c9747cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594046 |
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > already in the future. > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > relativity has nothing to do with accelration...so it doesn't matter. xxein: Who specified an acceleration? And do you really think there no accelerations in relativity theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B9F6A4.7CB8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594061 |
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > already in the future. > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <121ffd45-0028-4c63-b43c-39358f33559d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594066 |
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > > already in the future. > > > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start. 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f395117-e429-440d-bf75-f2e9c0beb3b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594068 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:56:36 AM UTC-7, xxe...@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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > > > already in the future. > > > > > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > > > I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start. > > 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? Man standing at equator has his watch ticking faster than a man standing at the N.pole. I've posted that lots of times. Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <npd3pu$4gb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594074 |
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Loud mouth & Cretin Glazier wrote: "I've posted that lots of times"... so said Trebert when... > .. the criminal Full Swine Glazier apparently does not know why he must apologize for his criminal threats, ...as seen by in what follows when... > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> the sanctimonious Full-Swine Glazier often posts: "god and religion is hocus pocus" and now that Glazier is doing his final twitching he trembles and prays: "Open Mind of God. Best to go with God, and be nice" > hanson wrote: But Glazier you Swine, it is YOU that is NOT nice, and things have not gotten any better because YOU came back after you wrote: > Full Swine & Cretin Glazier wrote: > "Why am I not loved by all?" > "I might leave if things do not get better"..because... > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier whose G=EMC^2 is short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", (Zika & or by his genetic ashkeNazi marker) defines Bert, reber Trebert, or Treb as the loud mouth, the misogynic Peeping Tom (lifts & looks under the shirts of girls) the Jewish Jailbird, the Liar, Hatemonger, schizoid mental cripple, Pervert Face- Shitter, criminal Graveyard vandal, Bigot, Racist, War-monger & Communist :B::ert Glazier who introduces himself with/as.... > :B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex & :B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.." :B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert :B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert. :B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that :B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face :B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide". :B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh". :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert. :B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement". :B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world" :B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert :B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and :B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. ".... :B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together :B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody :B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his :B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a :B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob. :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > about which .... Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > "Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup." "Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__." "Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!." > "Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street." "Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage." "Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can." > "reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" . "reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.: "reber, you don't believe in science." > Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> "Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote: > "Bert, your opinion doesn't count" "a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert" "Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker".... "Bert you are senile, dazed & confused" "Bert, you are Fucked in the head. > "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)" "TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker". "Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking moron who ever came down the Mass Pike." "Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?" > "Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot." "Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet." "Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck". > "Bert, you should be arrested" "Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your van seems to be a center for drug activity in the Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which.... > Aviator Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit... Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts. You know nothing about government nor physics. You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself. > Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote: > GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT! Saul Levy > Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way. > benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com> who recently nymshifted to "B Gates" <nobodyxx@gmail>, wrote: > One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized. But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier, but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is... and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!... ... still waiting "to be loved by all"... > hanson wrote: So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works, ... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier? > "What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man? He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D] BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal Graveyard Vandal who wrote: > (1) On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in: https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert. > Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which Glazier proudly announced & posted... > (2) On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser. <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which... > Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier threatened... > (3) On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote: Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net & Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide". <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> after... > (4) The Criminal Swine Glazier rejected to recant, disavow & apologize, and refused to stop his practices & because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-movement, acceting that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__. who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... and that Glazier, also being a Peeping Tom, enjoys lifting & loooking up under the skirts of girls... > hanson wrote: Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been "put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your legacy, is because: > Glazier the Swine fortunately posted: .... "hanson made me famous".... > hanson wrote So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for: > --- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising --- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising > which is why the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier> badly needs to be administered to with <http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ... > Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all" but incredibly, Glazier, you do have groupies who love you, and haved become, voluntarily, your personal slaves of you, Faceshitter Glazier, who demonstrate their worship & their devotion to their master Glazier, by lying under & literally shit-eating Glazier's turds: <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> such as: > =1= Sefton "john" <johnsefton288@gmail.com> the delusional vegetarian loud-mouth from Canuckistan's town of Regina is under the influence of his Lysergic- and Solanine contaminated diet and so Sefton lays himself with gusto under Face-shitter Glazier's Sphincter and enjoys eating <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> and Sefton is impressed also with the Hate-mongering of > =2= <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> is Iran's Glazier. The Freak Muslime Mehram Maleki HATES Western culture & the USA, hates Xtians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, even Sunnis. Yet Maldrecki lays himself freely UNDER the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier who bragged <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki", which the gay, Iranian Muslime, Maldrecki, consumed until he turned black & posted his <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie> > Then the 88 Year old Glazier announced that "Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses & a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... which so impressed Maldrecki that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by going LGBT & had a Sex change operation, whose result she posted in <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>. > =3= "AA" <double-a3@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__, aka "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts with his "AmoebA" brain, posted and yearns to be like Glazier, & "AA" doubles as "Anon Yidd. Mouse", <nobody@home.invalid> who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier is a Face shitter & a criminal Grave yard vandal, & Glazier who never recanted nor apologized for the overt criminal threats Glazier made.... .... >> > ...aux contraire, "AA", who is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__, comes to the aid of Full Swine Glazier's criminality, & worse, the Jewish Pig "AA" cum "Anon Yidd Mouse", curses folks that point at Glazier's behavior, which makes Yidd Mouse to be an "AA" example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent Jewish Scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> wherein it says: ||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to ||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world. ||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts. > ||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect ||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies. ||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours. ||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows ||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim > =4= Strangely, the Austrian Hitleryouth Halbmutt Wabnigger, <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> sides with Glazier too, but said: ____ "Jews are a residue of failed evolution" _______ > =5= Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>, the "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle) is a criminal Child-support dead-beat who greedily sucks turds out of Glazier's sphincter, especially when they are Methamphetamine preloaded as seen when Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote: ::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore. I masturbate. I've found that ::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate. ::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to ::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed. ::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin ::JR:: or meth. So I've recently vowed to not masturbate... ::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ... ::JR:: Does that make me smart ? -- I'd rather masturbate. ::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum). ::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want. ::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now, with his "mouth wide ::::::: open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser") ::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..." > =6= ... and even earlier, ironically, signed up was kike "Bodaisky", <root@localhost.localdomain> who lied and claimed to be "Bo Dai" from China, but was in fact "Fagie Bodaisky", who lives off the tips he gets from being a rest-room attendant in a NY Bath house for gay Jews. > =7= "Andrew Vecsey" posting as <trudi.schwander@gmail.com> is another AshkeNAZI pervert, a twat mimicker, who enjoys spending her time under Glazier's Sphincter like the ones above. Like those pigs s/he does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but s/he objects and groans when that is pointed out & comes runnning to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> > =8= The Wal-Mart Greeter "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> Mark L. Fergerson is another stupid & despicably filthy pig that enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like the 7 ones above. Like those 7 other pigs, the Wal-Mart Greeter Ferkel does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but says that Glazier's criminal behavior, like Glazier's looking up/under the skirts of girls, is "not abusive" & insists that "Us old-timers gotta stick together." > =9= Israeli Zionist Yehiel Porat <poraty350@gmail.com> is another 80 year old AshkeNAZI pervert, who enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like those pigs above who do NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but object and groans when that is pointed out & come to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> > > This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in: <http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew> <https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/> <https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+coprophilia>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbd6e598-8cfa-4512-b156-917487807717@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594074 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:09:58 PM UTC-4, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:56:36 AM UTC-7, xxe...@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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > > > > already in the future. > > > > > > > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > > > > > I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start. > > > > 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? > > Man standing at equator has his watch ticking faster than a man standing at the N.pole. I've posted that lots of times. Trebert xxein: That must be the only thing you know. Can't you keep Hanson in your pants?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57BA2631.7D1A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594068 |
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > > > already in the future. > > > > > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > > > I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b17f79a-dc94-4794-9ac9-58cf2dc96aa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594104 |
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > xxein: The principle is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the fastest time rate would be the clock above because it started > > > > > already in the future. > > > > > > > > > xxein: Would you really think that if the velocity of the moving clock was .9c? > > > > > > I'm talking about before you let go of the clock...since it's higher..it ticks faster...it's in the future..it got a head start. > > > > 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27ea6469-d182-403d-af5b-803ac35d846f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594123 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npfhvu$kgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #594204 |
On 8/22/2016 1:48 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. > were you writing faster before ? or slower ? which clock were you using ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57BB9844.7851@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594204 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web