Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Absolute time
88 views
Skip to first unread message
kenseto
Nov 30, 2012, 9:36:30 AM11/30/12
to set...@att.net
The only time exist is absolute time.
There is no unit of clock time that represents the same
amount of absolute time in different frames. IOW, a clock
second does not represent the same amount of absolute time
in different frames. With this difinition of absolute time
and clock second, one cannot compare the passage of a clock
seconds in different frames. IOW, the SR idea that the
speed of light is a universal constant is a non-starter.
The idea of absolute time is confirmed in the GPS system. The
GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133
radiation than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the
GPS second is designed to make the passage of a GPS second
corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second in terms
of absolute time and thus making the GPS in synch with the
ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT is
based on the idea of absolute time. IRT eliminates all the
paradoxes of SRT. In addition the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available
in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
Ken Seto
the passage of a ground clock second in terms f absolute time.
There is no unit of clock time that represents the same
amount of absolute time in different frames. IOW, a clock
second does not represent the same amount of absolute time
in different frames. With this difinition of absolute time
and clock second, one cannot compare the passage of a clock
seconds in different frames. IOW, the SR idea that the
speed of light is a universal constant is a non-starter.
The idea of absolute time is confirmed in the GPS system. The
GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133
radiation than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the
GPS second is designed to make the passage of a GPS second
corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second in terms
of absolute time and thus making the GPS in synch with the
ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT is
based on the idea of absolute time. IRT eliminates all the
paradoxes of SRT. In addition the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available
in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
Ken Seto
the passage of a ground clock second in terms f absolute time.
Henry Wilson
Nov 30, 2012, 2:35:25 PM11/30/12
to set...@att.net
The period of any stable oscillator DEFINES an interval of ABSOLUTE TIME. Such an oscillator can be taken anywhere anyhow and will still define the same amount of absolute time.
Throughout the whole history of clock making, the underlying aim has been to seek the 'perfect' oscillator.
THERE SIMPLY IS NO SUCH ANIMAL.
The oscillators used in GPS clocks are the best known today BUT UNFORTUNATELY even they are still not perfectly stable. Like all known objects, their intrinsic properties 'drift' with time and, more significantly in this instance, change very slightly when sent into free fall. Consequently, the clocks which are synched to their cycles must be software corrected immediately after launch and then at regular subsequent intervals to allow the system to operate efficiently.
Their actual rate is immaterial so long as that of each clock is identical within acceptable limits and each clock indicates the same absolute reading at any absolute instant.
The relative rate and reading of the receiving clock is fairly irrelevant.
Incidentally, the so-called GR correction that is supposedly applied to GPS clock rates is numerically identical to the speed increase of the signals as they fall to Earth. See: http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt
Jimmy Kesler
Nov 30, 2012, 3:02:54 PM11/30/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:36:30 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> The only time exist is absolute time.
never observed in nature
> The only time exist is absolute time.
Henry Wilson
Nov 30, 2012, 4:16:49 PM11/30/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Nov 30, 2012, 4:28:57 PM11/30/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:16:49 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
> is no known definition of time flow?
well, they have a vague definition, time is what clocks shows
> How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
> is no known definition of time flow?
with such a definition you cannot impose anything, not even that it must
imply a physical clock; in relativity the showings of theoretical clocks
makes perfect sense!!! :)
in fact a theoretical clock is preferred, because a physical clock would
be subject to frictions, something they try to avoid
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 30, 2012, 4:50:19 PM11/30/12
to
"Jimmy Kesler" wrote in message news:k9b8ep$ue0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
in fact a theoretical clock
===============================
What fact can a theoretical clock possibly be, snipping punk?
in fact a theoretical clock
What fact can a theoretical clock possibly be, snipping punk?
Jimmy Kesler
Nov 30, 2012, 5:00:35 PM11/30/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:50:19 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
> What fact can a theoretical clock possibly be, snipping punk?
hey snipping punk³, you cant read nor understand, you have a question to
ask let me know
wrote:
> What fact can a theoretical clock possibly be, snipping punk?
ask let me know
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 30, 2012, 5:02:34 PM11/30/12
to
"Jimmy Kesler" wrote in message news:k9baa3$2bq$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
=====================================
I have a better idea.
Fuck off, moron.
*plonk*
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
I have a better idea.
Fuck off, moron.
*plonk*
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Jimmy Kesler
Nov 30, 2012, 5:05:47 PM11/30/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:02:34 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
> *plonk*
you cant, i *plonk*ed you first
wrote:
> *plonk*
you cant, i *plonk*ed you first
paparios
Nov 30, 2012, 5:57:59 PM11/30/12
to
This is fun....
A bunch of shameless imbeciles trying to show the world they are not...and failing miserably in the process...
Ha Ha Ha Ha....
A bunch of shameless imbeciles trying to show the world they are not...and failing miserably in the process...
Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 30, 2012, 6:06:11 PM11/30/12
to
"paparios" wrote in message
news:6343cf98-a44e-4242...@googlegroups.com...
===============================
Glad to see you enjoying yourself, shameless spick.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
news:6343cf98-a44e-4242...@googlegroups.com...
Glad to see you enjoying yourself, shameless spick.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
space...@gmail.com
Nov 30, 2012, 10:16:32 PM11/30/12
to set...@att.net
On Friday, November 30, 2012 6:36:30 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> The only time exist is absolute time.
There is proof. In order to slow down there must be a fastest
> The only time exist is absolute time.
fundamental starting point.
Mitchell Raemsch
Henry Wilson
Dec 1, 2012, 5:29:30 AM12/1/12
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:28:57 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:16:49 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
>
> > is no known definition of time flow?
>
>
>
> well, they have a vague definition, time is what clocks shows
with such a definition you cannot impose anything, not even that it must imply a physical clock; in relativity the showings of theoretical clocks
>
> makes perfect sense!!! :)
So how do you define the rate of a clock?
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:16:49 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
>
> > is no known definition of time flow?
>
>
>
> well, they have a vague definition, time is what clocks shows
with such a definition you cannot impose anything, not even that it must imply a physical clock; in relativity the showings of theoretical clocks
>
> makes perfect sense!!! :)
> in fact a theoretical clock is preferred, because a physical clock would be subject to frictions, something they try to avoid.
Uha!
I'll send you some clock oil....
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 10:48:50 AM12/1/12
to set...@att.net
>
>
>
> The period of any stable oscillator DEFINES an interval of ABSOLUTE
TIME. Such an oscillator can be taken anywhere anyhow and will still
>define the same amount of absolute time.
Sigh....a period of any oscillator is dependent on the speed
>
>
> The period of any stable oscillator DEFINES an interval of ABSOLUTE
TIME. Such an oscillator can be taken anywhere anyhow and will still
>define the same amount of absolute time.
of arrival of energy to complete a period and the arrival of
energy is dependent on the incoming speed of light which, in
turn, is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
oscillator.
>
>
>
> Throughout the whole history of clock making, the underlying aim has been to seek the 'perfect' oscillator.
That's the point there is no cuch thing as a perfect oscillator. A
>
>
> Throughout the whole history of clock making, the underlying aim has been to seek the 'perfect' oscillator.
period of any oscillator is dependent on the state of absolute motion
of the oscillator.
>
>
>
> THERE SIMPLY IS NO SUCH ANIMAL.
Right.....that's why clocks in relative motion are running at different
>
>
> THERE SIMPLY IS NO SUCH ANIMAL.
rates dues to different attates of absolute motion.
>
>
>
> The oscillators used in GPS clocks are the best known today BUT UNFORTUNATELY even they are still not perfectly stable. Like all known objects, their intrinsic properties 'drift' with time and, more significantly in this instance, change very slightly when sent into free fall. Consequently, the clocks which are synched to their cycles must be software corrected immediately after launch and then at regular subsequent intervals to allow the >system to operate efficiently.
You don't know what you are talking about.
>
>
> The oscillators used in GPS clocks are the best known today BUT UNFORTUNATELY even they are still not perfectly stable. Like all known objects, their intrinsic properties 'drift' with time and, more significantly in this instance, change very slightly when sent into free fall. Consequently, the clocks which are synched to their cycles must be software corrected immediately after launch and then at regular subsequent intervals to allow the >system to operate efficiently.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 10:56:53 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 02:29:30 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> in fact a theoretical clock is preferred, because a physical clock
>> would be subject to frictions, something they try to avoid.
>
> Uha!
> I'll send you some clock oil....
right, the use of any kind of clock oil would reveal a real friction, they
>> in fact a theoretical clock is preferred, because a physical clock
>> would be subject to frictions, something they try to avoid.
>
> Uha!
> I'll send you some clock oil....
wont do that
as soon as they move a clock along a path through the fabric of spacetime
manifold (any kind of real physical clock) there would be a friction
between it and spacetime, the clock will tick slower as seen from outside
always slower, never faster no matter what!!!
funny that nobody ever can measure that slower tick, nor locally nor
remote, nor etc, by construction it is a fictious real thing
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 10:57:38 AM12/1/12
to
is constant in all frames. A clock second represents a different
amount of absolute time in different frames....that is the observed
cause of "time dilation". What this means is that there is no absolute
time dilation....a unit of clock time containing a different amount
of absolute time in different frames is the cause of the observed
time dialtion..
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 11:02:46 AM12/1/12
to
On Friday, November 30, 2012 4:28:57 PM UTC-5, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:16:49 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
>
> > is no known definition of time flow?
>
>
>
> well, they have a vague definition, time is what clocks shows
This definition of time is based on the bogus assumption that a clock
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:16:49 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there
>
> > is no known definition of time flow?
>
>
>
> well, they have a vague definition, time is what clocks shows
second is an intervalf universal time....IOW the passage of a clock
second in A'S FRAME IS CORRESPONDED TO THE PASSAGE OF A CLOCK SECOND
in B's frame.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 11:03:04 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:57:38 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> Absolute time is the only time exists.
time not even exists, give me a can of time
> Absolute time is the only time exists.
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 11:35:30 AM12/1/12
to
is the meaning of time dilation? If mathematical equation suggests
that moving clock is running slow but in the frame in which it is
located, it is not running slow then the only conclusion can be that
equation is wrong.
If an observer observes from the spaceship that earth is rotating at a
rate of one rotation in 1000 years then this will have some physical
effects. For example, all life on earth will die due to scorching. If
this does not happen then slow rotation observed from the moving frame
is apparent and so meaningless.
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 11:36:03 AM12/1/12
to set...@att.net
On Friday, November 30, 2012 9:36:30 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> The only time exist is absolute time.
The rate of passage of absolute time is independent of the
> The only time exist is absolute time.
state of motion of the clock. In other words, absolute time
is not frame dependent and that there is no absolute time dilation.
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 11:36:35 AM12/1/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 11:39:21 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:36:35 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>> time not even exists, give me a can of time
>
> Idiot.
imbecile
>> time not even exists, give me a can of time
>
> Idiot.
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 11:40:03 AM12/1/12
to
system. It is a measure of motion.
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 11:41:48 AM12/1/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 11:45:45 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:36:03 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> The rate of passage of absolute time is independent of the state of
> motion of the clock.
ilucid, time "passage" !? between what and where, do you have an
> The rate of passage of absolute time is independent of the state of
> motion of the clock.
observation a photo or something ?
> In other words, absolute time is not frame
> dependent and that there is no absolute time dilation.
gave the proof, lol :)
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 11:55:05 AM12/1/12
to
comparisons. When we say that distance between two trees is 10 meters,
we are comparing this distance with some standard distance.
For time we must have something with uniform periodic motion, which
can be called standard. All other motions are compared with this.
There is no such thing as theoretical clock. It only means that the
clock that is considered is error free.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 11:55:58 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:40:03 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> No body claimed that time is ponderable object. It is a measurement
> system. It is a measure of motion.
is worse than that, time is not even immaterial, nor metaphysical
> No body claimed that time is ponderable object. It is a measurement
> system. It is a measure of motion.
at best a memory outcome, based on latches and buffers
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 11:58:52 AM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:55:05 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Time is a system of measurement the way length is.
stop right there and clarify what you say, since it is not!
> Time is a system of measurement the way length is.
time cant be a "system" nor a "measurement", please think
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 12:07:33 PM12/1/12
to
If all motions cease, time will loose significance as a measuring
system. Motion can neither be zero nor infinite (good point for
relativists). T=L/v, if v is infinite then T=0. This is because with
infinite velocity an object can be every where at any instant of time
and so motion looses significance.
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 1, 2012, 12:11:59 PM12/1/12
to
not measurement of motion then let me know definition of motion. For
simplicity consider rotating motion.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 12:17:22 PM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:11:59 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> There is nothing to clarify. On the other hand, if you think time is not
> measurement of motion then let me know definition of motion.
how not, you give different names to things, clarify what a measurement is
> There is nothing to clarify. On the other hand, if you think time is not
> measurement of motion then let me know definition of motion.
then how time differ from a measurement, fill in the blanks
1. measurement is :
2. time is :
3. system is :
4. motion is :
...
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 12:28:05 PM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:07:33 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Time is related to motion.
you just contradict your self in you very next sentence, lol
> Time is related to motion.
Henry Wilson
Dec 1, 2012, 1:05:36 PM12/1/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 1:20:16 PM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:05:36 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> There is no 'observed time dilation'. ....there never has been and never
> will be.
exactly, relativists went too far in their taxonomy,
> There is no 'observed time dilation'. ....there never has been and never
> will be.
they coined "observed time dilation" then now the easy souls are taken it
as something that really exists
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 5:56:27 PM12/1/12
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 12:07:33 PM UTC-5, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:55 pm, Jimmy Kesler <jim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:40:03 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > > No body claimed that time is ponderable object. It is a measurement
>
> > > system. It is a measure of motion.
>
> >
>
> > is worse than that, time is not even immaterial, nor metaphysical
>
> >
>
> > at best a memory outcome, based on latches and buffers
>
>
>
> It is neither worse nor better than that. Time is related to motion.
>
> If all motions cease, time will loose significance as a measuring
>
> system.
No....if a clcok is in a state of absolute rest then it will
> On Dec 1, 9:55 pm, Jimmy Kesler <jim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:40:03 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > > No body claimed that time is ponderable object. It is a measurement
>
> > > system. It is a measure of motion.
>
> >
>
> > is worse than that, time is not even immaterial, nor metaphysical
>
> >
>
> > at best a memory outcome, based on latches and buffers
>
>
>
> It is neither worse nor better than that. Time is related to motion.
>
> If all motions cease, time will loose significance as a measuring
>
> system.
take the least amount of absolute time to complete a period.
> Motion can neither be zero nor infinite (good point for
>
> relativists).
of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute motion.
>T=L/v, if v is infinite then T=0.
at v=inifinite.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 1, 2012, 6:27:16 PM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:56:27 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> No....if a clcok is in a state of absolute rest then it will take the
> least amount of absolute time to complete a period.
what would be the driving force, a clock cant tick without a driving
> No....if a clcok is in a state of absolute rest then it will take the
> least amount of absolute time to complete a period.
force, does it?
absolute rest means not ticking :) lol
kenseto
Dec 1, 2012, 8:02:22 PM12/1/12
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:27:16 PM UTC-5, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:56:27 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > No....if a clcok is in a state of absolute rest then it will take the
>
> > least amount of absolute time to complete a period.
>
>
>
> what would be the driving force, a clock cant tick without a driving
>
> force, does it?
A period is completed by receiving energy from the aether (the E-Matrix).
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:56:27 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > No....if a clcok is in a state of absolute rest then it will take the
>
> > least amount of absolute time to complete a period.
>
>
>
> what would be the driving force, a clock cant tick without a driving
>
> force, does it?
>
> absolute rest means not ticking :) lol
as it receives the required energy from the aether (the E-matrix).
space...@gmail.com
Dec 1, 2012, 8:42:18 PM12/1/12
to
And how could we watch that?
No. Nano is a pipe dream...
Mitchell Raemsch
Y
Dec 1, 2012, 10:55:29 PM12/1/12
to
> There is no unit of clock time that represents the same
> amount of absolute time in different frames. IOW, a clock
> second does not represent the same amount of absolute time
> in different frames. With this difinition of absolute time
> and clock second, one cannot compare the passage of a clock
> seconds in different frames. IOW, the SR idea that the
> speed of light is a universal constant is a non-starter.
>
> The idea of absolute time is confirmed in the GPS system. The
> GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133
> radiation than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the
> GPS second is designed to make the passage of a GPS second
> corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second in terms
> of absolute time and thus making the GPS in synch with the
> ground clock permanently.
>
> A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT is
> based on the idea of absolute time. IRT eliminates all the
> paradoxes of SRT. In addition the equations of IRT are valid in
> all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available
> in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
>
> Ken Seto
> the passage of a ground clock second in terms f absolute time.
What is absolute time made of ? Your claim for the existence of an
> amount of absolute time in different frames. IOW, a clock
> second does not represent the same amount of absolute time
> in different frames. With this difinition of absolute time
> and clock second, one cannot compare the passage of a clock
> seconds in different frames. IOW, the SR idea that the
> speed of light is a universal constant is a non-starter.
>
> The idea of absolute time is confirmed in the GPS system. The
> GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133
> radiation than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the
> GPS second is designed to make the passage of a GPS second
> corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second in terms
> of absolute time and thus making the GPS in synch with the
> ground clock permanently.
>
> A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT is
> based on the idea of absolute time. IRT eliminates all the
> paradoxes of SRT. In addition the equations of IRT are valid in
> all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available
> in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
>
> Ken Seto
> the passage of a ground clock second in terms f absolute time.
absolute time violates the instantiation principle.
-y
Y
Dec 1, 2012, 10:58:02 PM12/1/12
to
On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:02:54 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
things along ? Like water ?
-y
> On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:02:54 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:36:30 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > The only time exist is absolute time.
>
> > never observed in nature
>
> > > The only time exist is absolute time.
>
>
> How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there is no known definition of time flow?
What is time flow ? You mean, time is like a substance that pushes
> How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there is no known definition of time flow?
things along ? Like water ?
-y
Y
Dec 1, 2012, 11:48:20 PM12/1/12
to
and now. This universe is a spatial rather than a temporal existence.
Particles which do not decay - are the only benchmarks for absolute
time - These particles exist "forever".
Your minds are confused around the passing of decades, change, and the
process of counting numerical points as a form of motion.
Time is a numerical overlay to all motion - it has no natural
presence.
-y
Y
Dec 1, 2012, 11:48:41 PM12/1/12
to
-y
Y
Dec 2, 2012, 12:00:54 AM12/2/12
to
of the clock is transmitted by reflected light from the clock. It is
this light which is affected by gravity and relative motion.
-y
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 3:56:02 AM12/2/12
to
> -y
kenseto
Dec 2, 2012, 8:55:26 AM12/2/12
to
clock rates.....they accumulate different number of clock seconds
between meeting. This is confirmed experimentally. I think what
you are saying is that the clock seconds in relative frames represents
a different amount of absolute time so that means that the
different number of accumulated clock seconds between meetings
represents the same amount of absolute time.
What this mean is that there is no absolute time dilation. The rate of
passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. The GPS uses
absolute time to synch it with the ground clock. They redefine the GPS
second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is
designed to make the redfined GPS second to contain the same amount
of absolute time as a ground clock second and thus making the
GPS permenently in synch with the ground clock.\
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
What is
kenseto
Dec 2, 2012, 9:02:53 AM12/2/12
to
"instantiation principle" is that your invention? I never heard of such
principle.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 2, 2012, 11:23:50 AM12/2/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:02:22 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> LoL....the Cs atom will complete a transition (A PERIOD) as soon as it
> receives the required energy from the aether (the E-matrix).
then you contradict your own notion of "absolute rest", plus, you need to
> LoL....the Cs atom will complete a transition (A PERIOD) as soon as it
> receives the required energy from the aether (the E-matrix).
prove, by induction of negation, the existence of such "aether energy"
Tyler Dresden
Dec 2, 2012, 11:42:52 AM12/2/12
to
Observe time dilation.
Tyler Dresden
Dec 2, 2012, 11:45:10 AM12/2/12
to
shoe".
kenseto
Dec 2, 2012, 12:16:57 PM12/2/12
to
receiving enery from an outside source?
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 2, 2012, 12:27:45 PM12/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:16:57 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> How do you think that the Cs 133 atom makes the transition if not
> receiving enery from an outside source?
according to they, a temperature higher then absolute zero
> How do you think that the Cs 133 atom makes the transition if not
> receiving enery from an outside source?
honestly, i dont know; but this is not the point, it is about the
existence of time, which, as you just showed, does not require a tick to
flow!!
however, a flow into a not existing world is not conceivable, ergo time
does not exists
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 2:14:24 PM12/2/12
to
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 2:28:46 PM12/2/12
to
A conventional 'clock' is a device that counts the cycles of an oscillator. The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute time interval.
If two identical quartz crystal oscillators are set in relative motion such that they pass each other, what do you claim is happening to TIME when they are adjacent?
Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone standing there....so what are you trying to say?
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 2, 2012, 2:40:19 PM12/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:28:46 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone
> standing there....so what are you trying to say?
that it does, what about you quoting less then replying
> Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone
> standing there....so what are you trying to say?
your configuration tells about a single instantaneous time reading,
whereas you cannot pick a flow out of it
you need gradients, that implies duration; now try to compare them, hmm?
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 2:50:14 PM12/2/12
to
You haven't heard of the "instantiation principle" for the same reason that you haven't heard of the 'flowiation principle' or the 'intervaliation principle'.
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 3:56:25 PM12/2/12
to
On Monday, December 3, 2012 6:40:19 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:28:46 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone
>
> > standing there....so what are you trying to say?
>
>
>
> that it does, what about you quoting less then replying
The quoting problem is due to the poor quality of the google word processor that I'm now forced to use.
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:28:46 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone
>
> > standing there....so what are you trying to say?
>
>
>
> that it does, what about you quoting less then replying
> your configuration tells about a single instantaneous time reading, whereas you cannot pick a flow out of it
> you need gradients, that implies duration; now try to compare them, hmm?
Yeah! That clarifies everything....
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 2, 2012, 4:08:55 PM12/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:56:25 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> your configuration tells about a single instantaneous time reading,
>> whereas you cannot pick a flow out of it
>
> Do you know what you are talking about? I'm sure nobody else does...
i suppose your system register a (1) time reading when those spaceships
>> your configuration tells about a single instantaneous time reading,
>> whereas you cannot pick a flow out of it
>
> Do you know what you are talking about? I'm sure nobody else does...
meet, this gives a gradient equal zero -> no flow (time)
in order to get a time flow you need at least two (2) time readings
simultaneous for those involved in your setup, i suppose
1. spaceship (object) 1
i. reading A
ii. reading B
2. the central observer
i. reading A
ii. reading B
3. spaceship (object) 2
i. reading A
ii. reading B
according to your setup this is impossible
space...@gmail.com
Dec 2, 2012, 7:19:37 PM12/2/12
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:58:02 PM UTC-8, Y wrote:
> On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:02:54 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:36:30 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > The only time exist is absolute time.
>
> >
>
> > > never observed in nature
>
> >
>
- How can anyone claim that time flow is affected by movement when there is no known definition of time flow?
> On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:02:54 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:36:30 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > The only time exist is absolute time.
>
> >
>
> > > never observed in nature
>
> >
>
But there is... time slows from an absolute starting point mathematically.
matter's time flow slows from C by dividing it by Einsteinian Gamma for moving in space. You program gamma by speed that slows time in two ways.
There really are two times that slow instead...
Mitchell Raemsch
Henry Wilson
Dec 2, 2012, 7:41:27 PM12/2/12
to
kenseto
Dec 3, 2012, 8:57:08 AM12/3/12
to
kenseto
Dec 3, 2012, 9:10:22 AM12/3/12
to
clock second does not represent the same duration (time)
in different frame.
In SR or LET the observer says that his clock second
represents the least amount of absolute time and that
a moving clock second represents a less amount of absolute
time (1/gamma) and that's why all clcoks moving wrt the
SR observer run slow.
>
>
>
> A conventional 'clock' is a device that counts the cycles of an oscillator. The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute time interval.
But each cycle takes a different amount of absolute time in
>
>
> A conventional 'clock' is a device that counts the cycles of an oscillator. The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute time interval.
different frames.
>
> If two identical quartz crystal oscillators are set in relative motion such that they pass each other, what do you claim is happening to TIME when they are adjacent?
>
> Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone standing there....so what are you trying to say?
You are wrong....relative motion is derived from the difference in
> Their motion certainly doesn't affect time flow at that point for anyone standing there....so what are you trying to say?
absolute motion of the two clocks. And the rate of accumulation of
clock seconds is dependent on the state of absolute motion of each clcok.
Henry Wilson
Dec 3, 2012, 10:05:52 AM12/3/12
to
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:10:22 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:28:46 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 3, 2012 12:55:26 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:00:54 AM UTC-5, Y wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:35 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken instead of raving on about clocks, why don't you try to understand what a clock is.
>
>
>
> You need to known that a a unit of clcok time such as a
>
> clock second does not represent the same duration (time)
>
> in different frame.
>
> In SR or LET the observer says that his clock second
>
> represents the least amount of absolute time and that
>
> a moving clock second represents a less amount of absolute
>
> time (1/gamma) and that's why all clcoks moving wrt the
>
> SR observer run slow.
Why should the time interval defined by a cycle of a crystal oscillator vary with that crystal's movement?
> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:28:46 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 3, 2012 12:55:26 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:00:54 AM UTC-5, Y wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:35 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken instead of raving on about clocks, why don't you try to understand what a clock is.
>
>
>
> You need to known that a a unit of clcok time such as a
>
> clock second does not represent the same duration (time)
>
> in different frame.
>
> In SR or LET the observer says that his clock second
>
> represents the least amount of absolute time and that
>
> a moving clock second represents a less amount of absolute
>
> time (1/gamma) and that's why all clcoks moving wrt the
>
> SR observer run slow.
Henry Wilson
Dec 3, 2012, 10:12:18 AM12/3/12
to
Maybe Tyler is related to 'Brian Jones'or 'Sue'....same style...
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 3, 2012, 6:05:05 PM12/3/12
to
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 16:41:27 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> According to what you have written it is impossible to understand what
> the hell you are talking about....
you are deluded, you just said this to kenseto, which is wrong, but i
> According to what you have written it is impossible to understand what
> the hell you are talking about....
suspect you are just plain stupid
"Ken instead of raving on about clocks, why don't you try to understand
what a clock is.
A conventional 'clock' is a device that counts the cycles of an
oscillator. The period of an oscillator DEFINES an absolute time interval.
If two identical quartz crystal oscillators are set in relative motion
such that they pass each other, what do you claim is happening to TIME
when they are adjacent?
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 3, 2012, 6:13:51 PM12/3/12
to
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:05:52 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Why should the time interval defined by a cycle of a crystal oscillator
> vary with that crystal's movement?
a crystal oscillator does not oscillate by itself, either you apply a
> Why should the time interval defined by a cycle of a crystal oscillator
> vary with that crystal's movement?
voltage (electricity, together with a small capacitance) and you get a
displacement (stress/force), or you apply a force and get electricity out
of that crystal
displacement and electricity are both subject to relativity concerns (if
real)
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 3, 2012, 10:16:39 PM12/3/12
to
statement that force is required for periodic oscillations. A wheel
will continue rotating non-stop in an inertial frame. Henry, too made
a mistake. He asks, “What makes a clock change its period when in
motion”.
Nothing happens to the clock in motion. Nothing happens to a rod that
is in motion. It is precisely for this reason; measurements made from
the “other” frame are apparent and not real.
Send a clock in orbital motion for years and bring it back to earth
for comparison. If there is difference in time reading then that
difference disproves SR. Because according to SR, time dilation is
reciprocal. What we observe here is a real effect and reciprocity of
SR and the statement that nothing actually happens to the time and
space in motion, makes the very theory useless and meaningless.
Y
Dec 3, 2012, 11:11:30 PM12/3/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantiation_principle
-y
Y
Dec 4, 2012, 3:26:48 AM12/4/12
to
There are quite a few many ways to describe time. Describing time is a
very delicate task.
Time is an entirely human invention. Time is something that is
produced. Time is a measure - a comparison between something moving
and something moving with uniform periodic motion (oscillating). By
making something move as periodically as possible, like a pendulum,
time is the numerical count of "oscillations" that occur in comparison
with the motions of something else. Technically, relativity explains
how this counting process is not universally reliable. This has people
like Seto confused. He believes that there is a universal timeline by
which all things move - hence his idea for "absolute time".
Experimental evidence shows that there is no universal timeline by
which everything moves.
Q: What is this stuff between point A and point B of a duration ?
A: Motion.
Q: If I wait twice as long in a queue than you do, what do I double to
make a comparison of my wait to your wait ?
A: Length.
-y
Vilas Tamhane
Dec 4, 2012, 9:15:25 AM12/4/12
to
and B approaching with relative velocity v between them. When v was
zero, they had identical synchronized clocks with minute and hour
hands. At the instant, they are opposite each other; A observes that
reading of his clock is 10 O’clock, whereas that of B shows 9 O’Clock.
Therefore, elapsed time can be compared in this way.
Problem is that, B finds positions of hands in his clock showing 10
O’clock. This is absurd since positions of the hands in B’clock are
events which cannot be different in the frame of A when the clocks are
opposite each other.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 4, 2012, 10:37:28 AM12/4/12
to
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:15:25 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> A observes that reading of his clock is 10 O’clock, whereas that of B
> shows 9 O’Clock.
> Therefore, elapsed time can be compared in this way.
noo, at best you have a reading, telling nothing about their anything
> A observes that reading of his clock is 10 O’clock, whereas that of B
> shows 9 O’Clock.
> Therefore, elapsed time can be compared in this way.
else, write down the diff definition (the numerical one) plug in your
reading and get exactly zero
also, you dont get crystal oscillators, i just showed you how they works,
you should rather thanks for that
in your setup, i suppose you use the electricity activation setup, not a
force
electricity (+ capacitor) -> crystal -> oscillations -> frequency -> clock
here both the electricity and the capacitor are subjects to relativistic
based changings
it depends on where the crystal gets its driving energy from, here
electricity, but a force driving oscillator could also be implemented, it
just needs a proper feedback mechanisme
Absolutely Vertical
Dec 4, 2012, 10:37:28 AM12/4/12
to
On 12/3/2012 10:11 PM, Y wrote:
>
> The instantiation principle says, "if it is not made of any material thing, substance or object
> then it does not exist." Since you say "time is not made of any material thing", by the instantiation
> principle the thing you describe does not exist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantiation_principle
>
you can't read? the instantiation principle says that a property cannot
>
> The instantiation principle says, "if it is not made of any material thing, substance or object
> then it does not exist." Since you say "time is not made of any material thing", by the instantiation
> principle the thing you describe does not exist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantiation_principle
>
exist unless it is exhibited by something. there is no requirement that
the something be a material thing or material substance. you added that
on your own.
kenseto
Dec 4, 2012, 11:37:34 AM12/4/12
to
a specific amount of energy to complete.....and the crysta's movement
will affect the speed of arrival of such energy.
kenseto
Dec 4, 2012, 11:59:22 AM12/4/12
to
and thus assumes all the properties of a preferred frame and that is
that an observed clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma...this is
the claim of the SR mutual time dilation. It turns out
that the SR predictions are correct for particale accelerator
design applications because clocks after acceleration do run slower
than the lab clock. However the SR predictions are incomplete from
the accelerated clock point of view the lab clock runs fast.
I invented a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes the
posibility that an observed clock can run fast. This means that
IRT is a complete theory of relativity. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid
kenseto
Dec 4, 2012, 12:20:40 PM12/4/12
to
a cyle of an oscillator requires the same amount of absolute time
(duration) to complete in different frames.....it does not.
>
> Q: What is this stuff between point A and point B of a duration ?
> A: Motion.
Motion wrt what?
> Q: What is this stuff between point A and point B of a duration ?
> A: Motion.
>
>
>
> Q: If I wait twice as long in a queue than you do, what do I double to
>
> make a comparison of my wait to your wait ?
> A: Length.
You need a clock to time your wait and my wait.
>
>
> Q: If I wait twice as long in a queue than you do, what do I double to
>
> make a comparison of my wait to your wait ?
> A: Length.
Henry Wilson
Dec 4, 2012, 4:26:45 PM12/4/12
to
No components of the oscillator are in relative motion at any time. When the whole system increases speed in one frame, it slows down in an infinite number of others. So how can its frequency speed up and slow down simultaneously?
Henry Wilson
Dec 4, 2012, 4:32:38 PM12/4/12
to
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:37:34 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, 3 December 2012 10:05:52 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:10:22 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:28:46 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, December 3, 2012 12:55:26 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:00:54 AM UTC-5, Y wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:35 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ken instead of raving on about clocks, why don't you try to understand what a clock is.
> On Monday, 3 December 2012 10:05:52 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:10:22 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:28:46 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, December 3, 2012 12:55:26 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:00:54 AM UTC-5, Y wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:35 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ken instead of raving on about clocks, why don't you try to understand what a clock is.
> > > clock second does not represent the same duration (time)
> > Why should the time interval defined by a cycle of a crystal oscillator vary with that crystal's movement?
> Because a cycle of a crystal oscillator requires the arrival of
>
> a specific amount of energy to complete.....and the crystal's movement
> Because a cycle of a crystal oscillator requires the arrival of
>
>
> will affect the speed of arrival of such energy.
The energy source is moving with the crystal.
> will affect the speed of arrival of such energy.
kenseto
Dec 4, 2012, 4:47:26 PM12/4/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 4, 2012, 5:08:27 PM12/4/12
to
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:26:45 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> No components of the oscillator are in relative motion at any time. When
> the whole system increases speed in one frame, it slows down in an
> infinite number of others. So how can its frequency speed up and slow
> down simultaneously?
locally yes, or perhaps, depends on the size of the capacitor and the
> No components of the oscillator are in relative motion at any time. When
> the whole system increases speed in one frame, it slows down in an
> infinite number of others. So how can its frequency speed up and slow
> down simultaneously?
crystal (length contraction), the electrons (holes) flow in the conductors
capacitor and crystal as well, subject to relativity concerns (as stated),
but you are right, i am not an expert, i just suppose those properties are
subject to relativistic changes, so must do the frequency!!
however, again, the oscillators are by parts, it is about wherever a
changing in a property balances entirely by a changing in another; i
suppose this is not the case, and the frequency must be affected by
relativity as a consequence
nota bene, relativists just bypass all i said and just consider that clock
running slower, no matter what, is a theoretical clock !!!
Henry Wilson
Dec 4, 2012, 6:59:09 PM12/4/12
to
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:08:27 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:26:45 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > No components of the oscillator are in relative motion at any time. When
> > the whole system increases speed in one frame, it slows down in an
> > infinite number of others. So how can its frequency speed up and slow
> > down simultaneously?
>
> locally yes, or perhaps, depends on the size of the capacitor and the
> crystal (length contraction), the electrons (holes) flow in the conductors
> capacitor and crystal as well, subject to relativity concerns (as stated),
> but you are right, i am not an expert, i just suppose those properties are
> subject to relativistic changes, so must do the frequency!!
You are stating aether theory, which says there will be real physical changes.
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:26:45 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > No components of the oscillator are in relative motion at any time. When
> > the whole system increases speed in one frame, it slows down in an
> > infinite number of others. So how can its frequency speed up and slow
> > down simultaneously?
>
> locally yes, or perhaps, depends on the size of the capacitor and the
> crystal (length contraction), the electrons (holes) flow in the conductors
> capacitor and crystal as well, subject to relativity concerns (as stated),
> but you are right, i am not an expert, i just suppose those properties are
> subject to relativistic changes, so must do the frequency!!
> however, again, the oscillators are by parts, it is about wherever a
> changing in a property balances entirely by a changing in another; i
> suppose this is not the case, and the frequency must be affected by
nota bene, relativists just bypass all i said and just consider that clock
running slower, no matter what, is a theoretical clock !!!
Henry Wilson
Dec 4, 2012, 7:12:21 PM12/4/12
to
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 8:47:26 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 16:32:38 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > Because a cycle of a crystal oscillator requires the arrival of
> On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 16:32:38 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > Because a cycle of a crystal oscillator requires the arrival of
> > The energy source is moving with the crystal.
>
>
>
> What source? How does it generate energy continuously?
Do you know what 'piezoelectric' means. Do you know how crystal oscillators operate?
>
>
>
> What source? How does it generate energy continuously?
kenseto
Dec 5, 2012, 10:48:49 AM12/5/12
to
does a crystal oscillates continuously and what is its source
of energy?
kenseto
Dec 5, 2012, 10:52:39 AM12/5/12
to
enery continuously?
kenseto
Dec 5, 2012, 10:58:24 AM12/5/12
to
at different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
Henry Wilson
Dec 5, 2012, 11:24:18 AM12/5/12
to
Henry Wilson
Dec 5, 2012, 11:30:31 AM12/5/12
to
An AA battery will do nicely. A simply electronic circuit creates a positive feedback loop between the crystal's piezoelectric output and voltage that cause it to deform.
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 5, 2012, 12:21:40 PM12/5/12
to
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:58:24 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>> nota bene, relativists just bypass all i said and just consider that
>> clock running slower, no matter what, is a theoretical clock !!!
>
> No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
:) man, imagine there are no clocks available in those spaceships, now
>> nota bene, relativists just bypass all i said and just consider that
>> clock running slower, no matter what, is a theoretical clock !!!
>
> No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
what, you still dont get it?
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 5, 2012, 12:22:18 PM12/5/12
to
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:58:24 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>> running slower, no matter what, is a theoretical clock !!!
>
> No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
:) man, imagine there are no clocks in those spaceships, now what, you
>
> No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
still dont get it?
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 5, 2012, 12:29:21 PM12/5/12
to
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:48:49 -0800, kenseto wrote:
>> Do you know what 'piezoelectric' means. Do you know how crystal
>> oscillators operate?
>
> No I don't know. Why don't you tell us? The question is how does a
> crystal oscillates continuously and what is its source of energy?
i told exactly this twice in this thread here, read
>> Do you know what 'piezoelectric' means. Do you know how crystal
>> oscillators operate?
>
> No I don't know. Why don't you tell us? The question is how does a
> crystal oscillates continuously and what is its source of energy?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Dec 5, 2012, 9:39:39 PM12/5/12
to
"Henry Wilson" wrote in message
news:e677a73a-ffb6-4192...@googlegroups.com...
====================================
Hmm... piezoelectric lucky white haether running on Gawd's batteries =
constant frequency... but you want constant wavelength.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:e677a73a-ffb6-4192...@googlegroups.com...
Hmm... piezoelectric lucky white haether running on Gawd's batteries =
constant frequency... but you want constant wavelength.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson
Dec 6, 2012, 4:03:11 AM12/6/12
to
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 1:39:39 PM UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
>
> news:e677a73a-ffb6-4192...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 6, 2012 2:52:39 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 16:32:38 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > will affect the speed of arrival of such energy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The energy source is moving with the crystal.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What is the process that causes the energy source to emit energy
>
> > continuously?
>
>
>
> An AA battery will do nicely. A simply electronic circuit creates a positive
>
> feedback loop between the crystal's piezoelectric output and voltage that
>
> cause it to deform.
>
>
>
> ====================================
>
> Hmm... piezoelectric lucky white haether running on Gawd's batteries =
>
> constant frequency... but you want constant wavelength.
Hullo! The mad pommie has turned up again....drunk and swinging as usual...welcome back pommie....how was your month in the nthouse?
> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
>
> news:e677a73a-ffb6-4192...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 6, 2012 2:52:39 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 16:32:38 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > will affect the speed of arrival of such energy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The energy source is moving with the crystal.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What is the process that causes the energy source to emit energy
>
> > continuously?
>
>
>
> An AA battery will do nicely. A simply electronic circuit creates a positive
>
> feedback loop between the crystal's piezoelectric output and voltage that
>
> cause it to deform.
>
>
>
> ====================================
>
> Hmm... piezoelectric lucky white haether running on Gawd's batteries =
>
> constant frequency... but you want constant wavelength.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Dec 6, 2012, 4:19:17 AM12/6/12
to
"Henry Wilson" wrote in message
news:ddefc017-317e-493d...@googlegroups.com...
I've never been away, bird-brained chicken farmer. If you insist on using
Google to wade through a gazillion piles of dog shit from a hundred cranks
without filtering them you'll miss all the important exchanges.
Henry Wilson
Dec 6, 2012, 6:08:24 AM12/6/12
to
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 6, 2012, 10:30:49 AM12/6/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:03:11 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
> but you want constant wavelength.
>
> Hullo! The mad pommie has turned up again....drunk and swinging as
> usual...welcome back pommie....how was your month in the nthouse?
he has a point here, if you take frequency and wavelength as unrelated
> but you want constant wavelength.
>
> Hullo! The mad pommie has turned up again....drunk and swinging as
> usual...welcome back pommie....how was your month in the nthouse?
independent properties, the wavelength is anisotropic length contraction
susceptible, frequency dos not necessarily
kenseto
Dec 6, 2012, 10:55:21 AM12/6/12
to
what is the energy source that enable the Cs atom to make
the transitions?
kenseto
Dec 6, 2012, 11:16:45 AM12/6/12
to
a transition from the lower energy to higher energy then from the
higher energy to the lower energy to complete a cycle. The arrival
of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
Cs 133 atom. The higher is its state of absolute motion the higher
amount of absolute time is needed to complete a cycle. That in turn
the higher amount of absolute time is required to complete a cycle
This is the cause of clock running slow after acceleration
(after an increase in its state of absolute motion).
>
> > > Einstein's silly theory says there are NO physical changes due to movement so what you say does't apply to relativity.
correct only if the observed clock is truly running slower than
the observer's clock. This interpretation is wrong if the observed
clock is running faster than the observer's clock.
IRT correct this interpreational problem by predicting that an
observed clock can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run faster
by a factor of gamma.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
Jimmy Kesler
Dec 6, 2012, 11:52:13 AM12/6/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:16:45 -0800, kenseto wrote:
> The Cs 133 atom must receive a specific amount of energy to make a
> transition from the lower energy to higher energy then from the higher
> energy to the lower energy to complete a cycle.
wrong, you never have a single atom
> The Cs 133 atom must receive a specific amount of energy to make a
> transition from the lower energy to higher energy then from the higher
> energy to the lower energy to complete a cycle.
Henry Wilson
Dec 6, 2012, 12:27:41 PM12/6/12
to
On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:16:45 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 11:24:18 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2012 2:58:24 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 18:59:09 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What does that say about the periods of the oscillators that run the clocks? Are you saying that the absolute time defined by their cycles is affected by their absolute movement? That's what all aether theories reckon.
>
>
>
> The Cs 133 atom must receive a specific amount of energy to make a transition from the lower energy to higher energy then from the higher energy to the lower energy to complete a cycle. The arrival
of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs 133 atom. The higher is its state of absolute motion the higher amount of absolute time is needed to complete a cycle. That in turn
the higher amount of absolute time is required to complete a cycle. This is the cause of clock running slow after (after an increase in its state of absolute motion).
> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 11:24:18 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2012 2:58:24 AM UTC+11, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 18:59:09 UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > No....two clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at different rates.....these are not theoretical clocks.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What does that say about the periods of the oscillators that run the clocks? Are you saying that the absolute time defined by their cycles is affected by their absolute movement? That's what all aether theories reckon.
>
>
>
> The Cs 133 atom must receive a specific amount of energy to make a transition from the lower energy to higher energy then from the higher energy to the lower energy to complete a cycle. The arrival
of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs 133 atom. The higher is its state of absolute motion the higher amount of absolute time is needed to complete a cycle. That in turn
> > > > Einstein's silly theory says there are NO physical changes due to movement so what you say does't apply to relativity.
>
>
>
the observer's clock. This interpretation is wrong if the observed clock is running faster than the observer's clock.
IRT correct this interpretational problem by predicting that an observed clock can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run faster by a factor of gamma.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
Ken, you should know by now that I accept the standard aetherist views you put forward as being legitimate...or at least they would be if a universal aether actually existed. That is why I always give you credit for being half right...which is far more than I would give to an Einstein worshipper.
I of course reject the whole ideas that space and time are related in any way or that there is a simple connection between intrinsic physical properties and relative movement.
Having said that, until some knowledge relating to the physical nature of 'fields' is unearthed, I will keep an open mind as to whether or not ordinary matter is affected in some general local way as it passes through those mysterious entities.
Henry Wilson
Dec 6, 2012, 12:33:25 PM12/6/12
to
On Friday, December 7, 2012 2:30:49 AM UTC+11, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:03:11 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > but you want constant wavelength.
>
> >
>
> > Hullo! The mad pommie has turned up again....drunk and swinging as
>
> > usual...welcome back pommie....how was your month in the nuthouse?
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:03:11 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > but you want constant wavelength.
>
> >
>
> > Hullo! The mad pommie has turned up again....drunk and swinging as
>
>
>
>
> he has a point here, if you take frequency and wavelength as unrelated independent properties, the wavelength is anisotropic length contraction susceptible, frequency dos not necessarily.
Light doesn't exhibit any 'frequency'. That is just an inferred property obtainable from the equation f = (c+v)/lambda...which describes 'wave arrival rate'.
0 new messages