clock rate

[xxe...@att.net]

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?

[Sergio]

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.

[xxe...@att.net]

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?

[Sylvia Else]

In the frame of which clock?

Sylvia.

[xxe...@att.net]

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?

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:08:29 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Satellites.
Are passing by (over you) in free fall a few meters over ground.

w.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/19/2016 12:27 AM, xxe...@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

[Sergio]

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 makeser...@paypal.com

[xxe...@att.net]

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.

[xxe...@att.net]

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.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

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

[xxe...@att.net]

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 posed? His model leads one astray.

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. This is not to kill Einstein but to resurrect him with a better model and let the chips fall as they may. And maybe more.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 4:11:19 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote:
xxein: Amazing! All the book-learned wannabes out there and no one knows how to figure out the time rate of a falling clock. I guess Einstein forgot to cover that or figured it was a no brainer. Naw. He never had the right model to work with and didn't mention it hoping no one would notice. It seems nobody did. I guess nobody needs to know.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 05:40 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 4:11:19 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> xxein: Amazing! All the book-learned wannabes out there and no one knows how to figure out the time rate of a falling clock. I guess Einstein forgot to cover that or figured it was a no brainer. Naw. He never had the right model to work with and didn't mention it hoping no one would notice. It seems nobody did. I guess nobody needs to know.
>

Such a methodology is funny.
Not getting answer from others is not evidence of no answer.

Learn the theory and use it.
If it cannot provide answer THEN there is no answer.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Sylvia Else]

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.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:40:33 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 4:11:19 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> xxein: Amazing! All the book-learned wannabes out there and no one knows how to figure out the time rate of a falling clock. I guess Einstein forgot to cover that or figured it was a no brainer. Naw. He never had the right model to work with and didn't mention it hoping no one would notice. It seems nobody did. I guess nobody needs to know.

xxein: But what really worries me is that everybody is saying to themselves that "Surely any competent physics aficionado could figure that out. I could if I wanted to. What's the big deal?" The big deal is that you can't. If anybody could, they would know they were departing from Einstein's work concerning gravity.

Uh-oh. As I am writing this, Poutnik is trying to read my mind. He says: "Such a methodology is funny. Not getting answer from others is not evidence of no answer. Learn the theory and use it. If it cannot provide answer THEN there is no answer." 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.

Oh! Now here's Sylvia. I'll be right with you.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> ....Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY.

Predictions of any theory
cannot be judged by analysis of predictions
that are not predictions of the theory.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxe...@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.

It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory
before making claim it does not provide any.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/08/2016 3:27 PM, xxe...@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, 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?
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:48:41 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>
> > ....Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY.
>
> Predictions of any theory
> cannot be judged by analysis of predictions
> that are not predictions of the theory.
>

xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:10 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:48:41 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>
>>> ....Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY.
>>
>> Predictions of any theory
>> cannot be judged by analysis of predictions
>> that are not predictions of the theory.
>>
> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.

What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:53:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxe...@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?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

What way you have reached this conclusion ?

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:46 xxe...@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 xxe...@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]

Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:

>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.
>>
>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?
>>

> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.

AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario,
there is a GR prediction for the case.

[The Starmaker]

> 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?

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:06:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:

> xxe...@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.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>
> >>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.
> >>
> >> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?
> >>
>
> > xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.
>
> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario,
> there is a GR prediction for the case.
>

xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it,

you make an unjustified claim before that.

"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?"

Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices?

What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not?

Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is.

Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know?

Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try.

[Sergio]

On 8/20/2016 6:19 PM, 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?"

assuming you are on earth, have gravity and located in the universe,
stationary has the faster time, as it is not moving relitive to the
universe as much as dropping clock.

you cant wash out the time dimention (and velocity) by saying "instant"

you lose, pay up, $4.95 to makeser...@paypal.com

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>>
>>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?
>>>>
>>
>>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.
>>
>> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario,
>> there is a GR prediction for the case.
>>
> xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case?

Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts.
It is your homework, not homework of others.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>

> xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it,
> you make an unjustified claim before that.
>
> "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?"
>
> Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices?
>
> What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not?
>
> Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is.
>
> Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know?
>
> Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try.
>

You can get the professional quality answers easier,
if reposted in a cooperative style.

Not in confrontation and demanding style,
that does not really search for the answer,
but just for confirmation of your a priori idea.

Searching for confirmation,
you evade scientific methods that could violate it.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>

> "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?"

None of them.

Regarding measured rates, either, or none,
depending on the scenario settings,
as the scenario is vaguely defined.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

....

>
> "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?"

...
>
> Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? ......
....

In sci.physics.relativity

[Alie...@gmail.com]

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

[Sergio]

if he knew the answer(s) he would have posted it by now.

the question, answers are more important than personalities

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: You have not even given adequate reasoning for an answer let alone a proof.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I have done my homework. Who is qualified to grade it?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: OK.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 16:55 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:52:06 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>>>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.
>>>>
>>>> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario,
>>>> there is a GR prediction for the case.
>>>>
>>> xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case?
>>
>> Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts.
>> It is your homework, not homework of others.
>>
>

> xxein: I have done my homework. Who is qualified to grade it?
>

IF you did, you would not post the topic,
especially after all those 25 years.

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

>
> 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?
>

While their rate is the same, their measured rate
is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: OK. Since the question asks for a qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, answer - the speed of the falling clock is greater than 0 and less than sqrt(2*(little)g*r).

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I'll check.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Yes. Accelerations, NOT velocities. Take it from there (if you can).

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Agreed. But it's fun to play with him.

BTW. It's was a 50-50 question and you lost.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: My homework has provided me with an analytical answer. I posted to see if anybody else could do the same. So your answer is 'no' then?

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:28 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

>>
>> IF you did, you would not post the topic,
>> especially after all those 25 years.

>

> xxein: My homework has provided me with an analytical answer. I posted to see if anybody else could do the same. So your answer is 'no' then?
>

If your car was ( not trivially ) broken
and you asked about the repair possibility,
the answer of an accountant, a baker
or even a hobbiest would be irrelevant
( unless by chance they had needed knowledge ).

The relevant answer is of a mechanic of the ( authorized ) service.
And if you do not get it,
this fact says nothing about the answer itself.

I am not a mechanic to give you the answer.
I may have one, but it may be in details inaccurate,
same as a hobbist may have some repair ideas.

Ask - nicely - at sci.physics.relativity
and I think Tom would reply.

[Alan Folmsbee]

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.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: You don't even know what constants you need to formulate an answer. OK. Earth's mass, radius, the specified measured velocity of the falling clock and an arbitrary height for the experiment. Since the form of the question only requires a binary choice for an answer, it is sufficient to provide only a range of velocities to satisfy an answer. The velocity (V) of the falling clock is 0<V<sqrt(2*little g*(r+h)) where h is an arbitrary height above ground of the stationary clock. This is a corrected version of the parameters I gave earlier. Unless (big)G, mass and radius have changed since then, this is all you need for the answer.

[The Starmaker]

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.

[The Starmaker]

Poutnik wrote:
>
> Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
> >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ?
> >>>>
> >>
> >>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case.
> >>
> >> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario,
> >> there is a GR prediction for the case.
> >>
> > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case?
>
> Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts.
> It is your homework, not homework of others.
>

xxein doesn't understand he is in a computer simulation and we are all
in his simulation.


xxein, you're dream is turning into a nightmare...and you're not going
to wake up..

it's time to change the dream.

[Sergio]

On 8/21/2016 10:56 AM, xxe...@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 xxe...@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 xxe...@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

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/08/2016 v 19:19 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):

> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxe...@att.net napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> While their rate is the same, their measured rate
>> is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario.
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
> xxein: You don't even know what constants you need to formulate an answer.

False conclusion.

You are not really interested in the answer,
but rather in trolling.

Why not to post to S.P.R. ?

[The Starmaker]

sounds like an engeneering problem, not a pysics problem.

[xxe...@att.net]

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).

[xxe...@att.net]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> xxe...@att.net wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:06:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > xxe...@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?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Do you post to dreams?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Read more of my replies.

[The Starmaker]

i'm posting in Your dream.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I will - eventually. Right now I'm pretty busy here.

[The Starmaker]

xxe...@att.net wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > xxe...@att.net wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:06:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > xxe...@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.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Is that what you want it to be?

[xxe...@att.net]

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?

[reber g=emc^2]

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

[hanson]

<herbert...@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...
>
<herbert...@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...
>
<herbert...@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 <swor...@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....@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 ji...@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" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@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 <nob...@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" <nob...@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....@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@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" <johnse...@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=
<clutterfre...@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" <doub...@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", <nob...@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",
<ro...@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.s...@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 "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@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 <pora...@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>

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: That must be the only thing you know. Can't you keep Hanson in your pants?

[The Starmaker]

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.

[xxe...@att.net]

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?

[xxe...@att.net]

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.

[Sergio]

On 8/22/2016 1:48 PM, xxe...@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 ?

[The Starmaker]

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?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I don't know. Should it be?

[Sergio]

yes, 2000 picoseconds.

[The Starmaker]

Something is wrong...no one seems to understands your questions, and you don't seem to understand their answers.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: You are free to not worry and go about your whatever.

[The Starmaker]

your game is over.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Do you think physics is a game? Bye.

[The Starmaker]

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.

[Sergio]

quantum time, it is both Yes No at the same time.