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 | 19 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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77f0e42a-4a50-4c54-a067-3ce117cc1e72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594260 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nphjs9$1h9o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #594307 |
On 8/23/2016 7:00 AM, 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: >> 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? > yes, 2000 picoseconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57BC731E.5669@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594307 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f0d46d7-bca0-4586-9704-1a92408c6468@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594320 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57BF2973.378F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594574 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e16b3896-012a-4176-b6b8-bb6654dc2c71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594664 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57BF42FA.1018@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594672 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npnrku$1dlt$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #594679 |
On 8/25/2016 2:11 PM, 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. > quantum time, it is both Yes No at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 03:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3d3ceff-e22b-4080-9c07-f4dc853b1f4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593834 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:11:19 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote: (snip to the crash) > > > > >>> 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? > > 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? > > xxein: Yes. Haven't you ever heard of gravitational time dilation? Remember the elevator thing? The falling clock can't tell if it's falling in a gravity field or accelerating in free space. Take it from there. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40bd497a-1082-4a71-8e43-866928840351@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594016 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 6:11:10 AM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:11:19 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > (snip to the crash) > > > > > > >>> 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? > > > > 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? > > > > xxein: Yes. Haven't you ever heard of gravitational time dilation? > > Remember the elevator thing? The falling clock can't tell if it's falling in a gravity field or accelerating in free space. > > Take it from there. > > > Mark L. Fergerson xxein: Yes. Accelerations, NOT velocities. Take it from there (if you can).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 12:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1n9ucFbit1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593753 |
On 19/08/2016 9:08 AM, 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? > In the frame of which clock? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9622e31b-5a8e-40ad-9bd8-7fd1a749c53d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593768 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:41:21 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2016 9:08 AM, 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? > > > > In the frame of which clock? > > Sylvia. xxein: Which clock frame would you like? If you are going by the adage that passing space ships will see each other's clock going slow, I would ask for experimental evidence of that. As far as I know, it is only theory that says/predicts that's what happens. That is the point of my post. Does/can GR predict a wrong result?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 07:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np6v5h$2fo$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #593778 |
On 8/19/2016 12:27 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > xxein: Which clock frame would you like? > > If you are going by the adage that passing space ships will see each other's clock going slow, > I would ask for experimental evidence of that. As far as I know, it is only theory that says/predicts > that's what happens. That is the point of my post. Does/can GR predict a wrong result? Then I think the point of your post is misbegotten. It is experiment that shows this. The clocks are earth and satellite transmitters. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dace84e-f5e9-40b7-b76f-db46cbdfff0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593792 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:47:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/19/2016 12:27 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > xxein: Which clock frame would you like? > > > > If you are going by the adage that passing space ships will see each other's clock going slow, > > I would ask for experimental evidence of that. As far as I know, it is only theory that says/predicts > > that's what happens. That is the point of my post. Does/can GR predict a wrong result? > > Then I think the point of your post is misbegotten. > It is experiment that shows this. The clocks are earth and satellite > transmitters. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables xxein: I don't think you understand the point. Compared to a far-away clock (1 sec/sec), a clock on (non-rotating) earth's surface beats 9.99999999303872E-01 sec/sec. So does a clock circular orbiting at 1.5r. A clock orbiting at 2r beats at 9.99999999477904E-01 sec/sec (ie faster). Orbiting at 1r = 9.99999998955809E-01 sec/sec (ie slower). So much for your comparison. I have a clock with a (+/-) vertical speed at the earth's surface. Apples and oranges. Get it? I'd like to see your method to calculate that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 16:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1qajdF2nl6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593778 |
On 19/08/2016 3:27 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:41:21 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 19/08/2016 9:08 AM, 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? >>> >> >> In the frame of which clock? >> >> Sylvia. > > xxein: Which clock frame would you like? > > If you are going by the adage that passing space ships will see each > other's clock going slow, I would ask for experimental evidence of > that. As far as I know, it is only theory that says/predicts that's > what happens. That is the point of my post. Does/can GR predict a > wrong result? > Before you could determine whether the result is wrong, you'd have to do the experiment. I'm not sure how you'd go about measuring the rate of clocks during an instant. We accept GR as being correct because it's been verified in experiments that are practical to perform, there being sufficient in number and diversity of them that if GR were wrong, it would have been falsified. It's not reasonable to refuse to accept a theory just because experiments relating to one's pet scenario are impractical. "Place a clock on each of two 100 tonne exactly spherical boulders. Now make those boulders move at 0.99c relative to each other. Compare the clocks. Too difficult? Then your theory is wrong." Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 01:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b322ede-5601-4a87-9c8e-1510d0dd7fce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593914 |
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2016 3:27 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:41:21 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 19/08/2016 9:08 AM, 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? > >>> > >> > >> In the frame of which clock? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > xxein: Which clock frame would you like? > > > > If you are going by the adage that passing space ships will see each > > other's clock going slow, I would ask for experimental evidence of > > that. As far as I know, it is only theory that says/predicts that's > > what happens. That is the point of my post. Does/can GR predict a > > wrong result? > > > > Before you could determine whether the result is wrong, you'd have to do > the experiment. > xxein: But you don't have to do the experiment determine if the result is right? > I'm not sure how you'd go about measuring the rate of clocks during an > instant. > xxein: We have ways, Frau Sylvia. Actually, a faster clock fall combined with a longer adequate measure time will reduce the error uncertainty while it would increase the the difference in clock rates. > We accept GR as being correct because it's been verified in experiments > that are practical to perform, there being sufficient in number and > diversity of them that if GR were wrong, it would have been falsified. > It's not reasonable to refuse to accept a theory just because > experiments relating to one's pet scenario are impractical. > xxein: Apparently the many experiments weren't diverse enough and only addressed what GR described. Notwithstanding, GR does not address this issue nor come close to adequately encompassing it. I'm not saying GR gives wrong answers either. I am saying that GR has little understanding of gravity. Iow, if curved space-time is the model it falls short of modeling gravity. As such it can potentially mislead further research. Luckily, the imaginative picture we get with a curved space-time match with the real measurements we have so far gotten. Repeat - so far. But our measurements come tempered with the picture we get by an arbitrary reasoning. I don't really expect you to understand this. If you are well read, you will know that the same was said about Einstein's theories. It is so hard to change the ways of our thinking, isn't it? > "Place a clock on each of two 100 tonne exactly spherical boulders. Now > make those boulders move at 0.99c relative to each other. Compare the > clocks. Too difficult? Then your theory is wrong." > xxein: Non-sequitur. I can't believe that you think that is a valid comparative argument. With that, then Einstein was wrong about the double bending of light - until it was verified by experiment. And even then he was not right until it was verified convincingly. > Sylvia. xxein: You eagerly started with your authoritative attitude. I guess that works for those followers that believe you are the priestess of an infallible Einstein god. At any rate, I compliment you for your, um, knowledge and understanding of Einstein's theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 07:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <597drb5bk5p2efuo57g7tj2njnpmljkovv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #593753 |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:08:29 -0700 (PDT), 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? Satellites. Are passing by (over you) in free fall a few meters over ground. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b6cb073-8032-4166-85c4-d4f4bd72d78b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593753 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-10, xxe...@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? An observer falling with the dropped clock will see hur falling clock runs faster than the clock sitting on the ground. Time is growing out of Earth radially, so time passes by the falling clock faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac77d50c-c204-4bb0-b1e0-7af354b1f7bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594043 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:16:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-10, xxe...@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? > > > An observer falling with the dropped clock will see hur falling clock runs faster than the clock sitting on the ground. Time is growing out of Earth radially, so time passes by the falling clock faster. xxein: An answer and a reason. Good. You almost had it going there. Unfortunately it is not valid. That deserves a hint though. Here: By whatever method you define the velocity, it is range sensitive and tips the binary answer (faster - slower).
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web