Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #672633 > unrolled thread

The stupidity of any atomic clock.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The stupidity of any atomic clock. Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 03:30 -0800
    The stupidity of any atomic clock. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-02-23 07:55 -0800
      Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 09:12 -0800
        Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 17:37 +0000
          Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 09:43 -0800
        Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 09:42 -0800
          Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 11:38 -0800
    The stupidity of any atomic clock. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-02-23 10:39 -0800
    Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-02-23 20:41 +0000
      Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-23 14:46 -0800
        Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-02-26 09:07 -0800
          Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-26 10:27 -0800
            Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> - 2018-02-26 13:12 -0600
        Re: The stupidity of any atomic clock. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-02-26 19:47 +0000

#672633 — The stupidity of any atomic clock.

Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity? Must be. 

THIS IS NOT ACCURATE (not as they may claim).  And I don't care how big the mass is of radioactive material.  

They got to measure the amount of radioactivity also (over time ha ha) and this is most likely not at all accurate (the biggest an weakest link in any precision).  

As far as high precision goes I'd bet a good digital watch ('temp. controlled' and "rad hard") could far outpass the precision of any atomic clock. An atomic clock could be precise but is the dumbest thing going (may keep people hire, although).  It must vary significantly outside the confines of any experiment involving for example ESR EGR and c (the speed of light) and all the physics that surrounds this speed (the associated equations). 

I MEAN STUPID. 

It's like using spent rod from a nuclear plant and a Geiger counter (plus too much wasted high-technology, intelligent mind, and MANpower.

Simon.

I won't get into Carbon dating.  I don't date anymore. Never much did.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#672714

Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672737

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

Read it. So HOW does it work? My assumption was wrong.  Now how is this true explanation any better.  How? Reducing to a particular transition accomplishes...?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672747

Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...
>> 
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
> 
> Read it. So HOW does it work? My assumption was wrong.  Now how is this
> true explanation any better.  How? Reducing to a particular transition accomplishes...?
> 

The wiki article has references for more elaborate information. 
The purpose of citing a short wiki article was simply to 1) make it clear
your assumptions are clearly wrong, and 2) incite interest to dive deeper
to uncover the real answer. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672751

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:37:15 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...
> >> 
> >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
> > 
> > Read it. So HOW does it work? My assumption was wrong.  Now how is this
> > true explanation any better.  How? Reducing to a particular transition accomplishes...?
> > 
> 
> The wiki article has references for more elaborate information. 
> The purpose of citing a short wiki article was simply to 1) make it clear
> your assumptions are clearly wrong, and 2) incite interest to dive deeper
> to uncover the real answer. 

was it?


> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672750

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:12:39 PM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...
> > 
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
> 
> Read it. So HOW does it work? My assumption was wrong.  Now how is this true explanation any better.  How? Reducing to a particular transition accomplishes...?

i get it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672796

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:12:39 PM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > Well, your assumptions about atomic clocks are wrong...
> > > 
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
> > 
> > Read it. So HOW does it work? My assumption was wrong.  Now how is this true explanation any better.  How? Reducing to a particular transition accomplishes...?
> 
> i get it.

Excellent!
Nice to learn new things, right?

Did you notice that you had some of the right ideas for
improvements? Like controlled temperature.
have a great day.
   Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672773

Troll. Not even a good troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672809

Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?

No.

<snip remaining babbling nonsense based on ignorance>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672843

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?
> 
> No.
> 
> <snip remaining babbling nonsense based on ignorance>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

How does the clock count? 
How about the atomic clock's timing?
For it to measure there must be the equivalent of a button pressed 
twice; beginning and end. this like QM says introduces inexactitude.
The need to button press introduces uncertainty in measurement.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673493

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:46:41 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?
> > 
> > No.

> How does the clock count? 
> How about the atomic clock's timing?
> For it to measure there must be the equivalent of a button pressed 
> twice; beginning and end. this like QM says introduces inexactitude.
> The need to button press introduces uncertainty in measurement.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

 No buttons involved. Electronics only.
What you call the "inexactude" is really what is called the precision.
they actually measure the frequency, but the result is
the Cesium clocks used as the current standard have a precision
of less than one second in 138 million years.

so the the equivalent clock tick is about 0.2 Femtoseconds
(0.2*10^-15 second).

Many measurements can be made without start and stop buttons, such
as comparing two atomic clocks (e.g., time dilation due to gravity).

Precision timing of things like sonar or radar ranging are
done electronically so they do not lose much of that precision.

If you have a particular inexact measurement in mind,
describe it and there may be a solution for you.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673505

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:46:41 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?
> > > 
> > > No.
> 
> > How does the clock count? 
> > How about the atomic clock's timing?
> > For it to measure there must be the equivalent of a button pressed 
> > twice; beginning and end. this like QM says introduces inexactitude.
> > The need to button press introduces uncertainty in measurement.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
>  No buttons involved. Electronics only.

Electronics function as the equivalent...
There must be a marked beginning and 
ending timing that introduces uncertainty
in any measurement.

> What you call the "inexactude" is really what is called the precision.

I don't care about making words special.
And if there is lack of precision there
is a certain degree of uncertainty involved
in every measurement result.

> they actually measure the frequency, but the result is
> the Cesium clocks used as the current standard have a precision
> of less than one second in 138 million years.
> 
> so the the equivalent clock tick is about 0.2 Femtoseconds
> (0.2*10^-15 second).
> 
> Many measurements can be made without start and stop buttons, such
> as comparing two atomic clocks (e.g., time dilation due to gravity).

The equivalents must exist...

> 
> Precision timing of things like sonar or radar ranging are
> done electronically so they do not lose much of that precision.
> 
> If you have a particular inexact measurement in mind,
> describe it and there may be a solution for you.

It applies to all. Look at Quantum Mechanics Ed...

> 
> Ed

Lack of precision or inexactitude is the problem.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673511

On 2/26/2018 12:27 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:46:41 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> How does the clock count? 
>>> How about the atomic clock's timing?
>>> For it to measure there must be the equivalent of a button pressed 
>>> twice; beginning and end. this like QM says introduces inexactitude.
>>> The need to button press introduces uncertainty in measurement.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>  No buttons involved. Electronics only.
> 
> Electronics function as the equivalent...
> There must be a marked beginning and 
> ending timing that introduces uncertainty
> in any measurement.
> 
>> What you call the "inexactude" is really what is called the precision.
> 
> I don't care about making words special.
> And if there is lack of precision there
> is a certain degree of uncertainty involved
> in every measurement result.

same with words, they are not exact, and sentances are even worser.



>>
>> Ed
> 
> Lack of precision or inexactitude is the problem.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673529

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is an atomic clock based on radioactive decay and the change of radioactivity?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> <snip remaining babbling nonsense based on ignorance>
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> How does the clock count? 

You are either a trolling, babbling kook or an utterly ignorant naif too
stupid to do a simple Google search.

<snip babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web