Does the frequency of a moving clock become lower or its period become shorter?

[Xinhang Shen]

In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary clock.

Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> more slowly than a stationary clock.

That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.

What is true is that an inertial frame used to measure a moving clock
will measure it as ticking more slowly than an identical clock at rest
in the frame. "Time dilation" is about measurements and how they are
made, not clocks varying their (proper) tick rates.

[Note that it OUGHT to be obvious that to measure the tick
rate of a moving clock, one must observe it at least twice,
so one must have some method to relate multiple observations
AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS to each other. The standard way to do
that in physics is to relate them using an inertial frame.]

> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused
> by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or
> by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

THINK about what you are asking -- if the period became shorter it would
speed up. But as I said above, neither the clock's frequency nor period
actually change; what changes is OTHER observers observations of them
(which manifestly do not affect the clock itself).

Tom Roberts

[Xinhang Shen]

Everybody knows that the moving clock means the clock moving relative to the observer, which the observer sees runs more slowly than the clock stationary relative to him according to special relativity. Please answer the question: relative to the observer, does the frequency of the moving clock become lower than that of the stationary clock or its period become shorter than that of the stationary clock?

[Dono.]

Let's say that the period of the clock, measured by an observer co-moving with the clock is dt. An observer moving with speed v wrt the clock observes the period dt' where:

dt'=dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Clear enough?

[Xinhang Shen]

The moving clock's period T' is becoming shorter than the stationary clock's period T:

T' = γ(T - vx/c^2) = γ(T - v(vT)/c^2) = γT(1 - v^2/c^2) = T/γ < T

That means, the moving clock's period becomes shorter than the stationary clock's period, and thus the moving clock's frequency becomes faster than the stationary clock's frequency because frequency is the reciprocal of period, which means that the moving clock ticks more frequently than the stationary clock. Is that correct?

[Dono.]

No, you are an idiot, the period is simply T' = γT

[Richard Hachel]

Le 15/08/2022 à 17:50, Xinhang Shen a écrit :

> Everybody knows that the moving clock means the clock moving relative to the
> observer, which the observer sees runs more slowly than the clock stationary
> relative to him according to special relativity. Please answer the question:
> relative to the observer, does the frequency of the moving clock become lower than
> that of the stationary clock or its period become shorter than that of the
> stationary clock?

Here is a very good question which is not studied seriously enough I
think.

And to which it goes without saying that we will always respond very
badly.

The first thing to understand is the relativity of chronotropy which
relativistic theorists all understand very well.

This means that the clocks of the mobiles that we observe, whatever they
are, will always beat less quickly by nature than our own watch.

This may seem very counter-intuitive.

But it is nevertheless the reality of things, and it is today practically
accepted by all.

We then have the proper time Tr (or real) of the mobile which will seem to
beat more slowly than our personal time To.

This is called the relativity of chronotropy.

The equation is well known and taught:
To=Tr/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

BUT, the problem of relativist physicists today is that they limit
themselves to this simple relativity effect of chronotropy, and
systematically conceal the second effect, that of universal anisochrony.

There are therefore two effects to take care of, and not just one.

The second effect depends not only on the speed, but also on the direction
of displacement of the object in the reference frame of the observer.

This effect is like To=Tr.(1+cosΦ.v/c)

To obtain the complete equation, it is therefore necessary to pose:
To=Tr.(1+cosΦ.v/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

We understand then why I do not like the term dilation of durations,
preferring that of elasticity of durations.

A duration that can be longer or shorter than the mobile's own duration.

It is moreover exactly the same thing for distances and lengths. The term
elasticity is much more natural and more logical.

We will quickly realize this if we dare to study a "Langevin" in apparent
speeds, and to state that the proper time of the traveler multiplied by
the APPARENT speed of the earth returning towards him can only expand.

x=Vapp.Tr

Something absolutely impossible if we limit ourselves to the notion of
contraction of distances as the good doctor Hachel advises against it.

Merci de votre écoute.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 15/08/2022 à 17:50, Xinhang Shen a écrit :

> Everybody knows that the moving clock means the clock moving relative to the
> observer, which the observer sees runs more slowly than the clock stationary
> relative to him according to special relativity. Please answer the question:
> relative to the observer, does the frequency of the moving clock become lower than
> that of the stationary clock or its period become shorter than that of the
> stationary clock?

Here is a very good question which is not studied seriously enough I
think.

And to which it goes without saying that we will always respond very
badly.

The first thing to understand is the relativity of chronotropy which
relativistic theorists all understand very well.

This means that the clocks of the mobiles that we observe, whatever they
are, will always beat less quickly by nature than our own watch.

This may seem very counter-intuitive.

But it is nevertheless the reality of things, and it is today practically
accepted by all.

We then have the proper time Tr (or real) of the mobile which will seem to
beat more slowly than our personal time To.

This is called the relativity of chronotropy.

The equation is well known and taught:
To=Tr/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

BUT, the problem of relativist physicists today is that they limit
themselves to this simple relativity effect of chronotropy, and
systematically conceal the second effect, that of universal anisochrony.

There are therefore two effects to take care of, and not just one.

The second effect depends not only on the speed, but also on the direction
of displacement of the object in the reference frame of the observer.

This effect is like To=Tr.(1+cosΦ.v/c)

To obtain the complete equation, it is therefore necessary to pose:

To=Tr.(1+cosΦ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

We understand then why I do not like the term dilation of durations,
preferring that of elasticity of durations.

A duration that can be longer or shorter than the mobile's own duration.

It is moreover exactly the same thing for distances and lengths. The term
elasticity is much more natural and more logical.

We will quickly realize this if we dare to study a "Langevin" in apparent
speeds, and to state that the proper time of the traveler multiplied by
the APPARENT speed of the earth returning towards him can only expand.

x=Vapp.Tr

Something absolutely impossible if we limit ourselves to the notion of
contraction of distances as the good doctor Hachel advises against it.

Merci de votre écoute.

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
₀₀₀
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=fygl3Ee7vqF77JROok103-X9Kck@jntp>

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hachel wrote:

> BUT, the problem is that Richard Hachel is an imbecile

Yep

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-3, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:
> In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary clock.
>
> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

The "contraction" of the clock in the direction of motion makes its timing slower in the same proportion.

Ask Dono, the prophet of relativity.

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-3, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:

> In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary clock.
>
> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

[Tadd Muraro]

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused by
>> its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or by
>> its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?
>
> The "contraction" of the clock in the direction of motion makes its
> timing slower in the same proportion.
>
> Ask Dono, the prophet of relativity.

these capitalist americans are stupid like recounted_votes. Michael Obama
can't remember when he married to the dick.

Obama Kids Are Adopted! Meet THE REAL Parents! (Michelle Is A Tranny) 2022
https://www.brighteon.com/950c8c80-dd91-4420-8e83-3f5d7063a3de

they had 8 years a "first_lady" which was a man. This is called
"democracy".

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:

> In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> more slowly than a stationary clock.

That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.

What is true is that an inertial frame used to measure a moving clock
will measure it as ticking more slowly than an identical clock at rest
in the frame. "Time dilation" is about measurements and how they are
made, not clocks varying their (proper) tick rates.

[Note that it OUGHT to be obvious that to measure the tick
rate of a moving clock, one must observe it at least twice,
so one must have some method to relate multiple observations
AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS to each other. The standard way to do
that in physics is to relate them using an inertial frame.]

> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused
> by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or
> by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 06:26:43 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
> is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
> proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.

And still, as anyone can check in GPS, it's just some bullshit.

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-3, xs...@nacgeo.com wrote:

<snip>

> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?

I have never replied to posts like this, but this stupidity really infuriates me.

Are you a troll or just ignorant of concepts that a 10 yo child already know?

f = 1/T ; T = 1/f

You CAN'T have two inverse reciprocal parameters increasing or decreasing SIMULTANEOUSLY. If one increases, the other decreases!

Now, do you realize the imbecility that you posted?

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not

...
> Tom Roberts

<snip>

Tom, are you trolling? Does look like it!
One does not revive a month old reply/post.

You really need to take care on your netiquette.

[J. J. Lodder]

rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> > That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> ...
> > Tom Roberts
>
> <snip>
>
> Tom, are you trolling? Does look like it!
> One does not revive a month old reply/post.

Newbie?

> You really need to take care on your netiquette.

Nothing wrong with replying to older postings,
or with reviving older threads,

Jan

[The International NAC Society Inc.]

For a cesium clock, the elapsed time is always counted as the number of cycles multiplied by a constant (i.e. 1/9192631770). In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of time and frequency. For the moving clock (moving relative to the observer):

N' = t'f' = t'/T'
Tc' = N'/k
k = 9192631770

For the stationary clock (carried by the observer):

N = tf = t/T
Tc = N/k

where N, N' are the counted number of cycles respectively, f, f' are the frequency of the corresponding clock, t, t' are the relativistic time of the corresponding reference frame defined by Lorentz Transformation, T, T' are the period of the corresponding clock, Tc, Tc' are the clock time of the corresponding clock.

According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:

t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ

where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame.

Since period is an interval of time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:

T' = T/γ

Thus, we have:

Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = N/k = Tc

That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.

[Ken Seto]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
> is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
> proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.

I disagree.
You assumed that a clock second is a universal interval of time in different frames and thus all clocks tick at the same rate......it is not.
Delta(t')=Gamma*Delta(t)
The proper interpretation is that the observer does not know if the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate or a faster rate.
An SR observer wrongly assumes that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why he assumes that the observed clock is running slow. BTW that's why SR is an incomplete theory.
A complete theory of relativity, I invented IRT. IRT is described fully in Chapter 4 of my book on the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Ibes Confortola]

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
>> tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate --
>> that is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of
>> its proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.
>
> I disagree.

as anybody gives a shit. Transiting along "uKraine", how the fuck are you
transiting, when it's full of nazis. Also, in fascist america, the armed
police searching the private house of a former president, bad as he was,
but still president. Then the fascist party making the republican
conservative illegal, and demanding people to take mortal serum said
vaccines, without anyone being a doctor. Fuck mee, they still can't see
they are fascist.

then the bidena, in response to putina atomic bombs promise,if his country
attacked, the bidena threatens Russia if his stolen fascist america
country is *NOT* attacked. The fascist drops atomic bombs on people, if
NOT attacked. *_I_am_not_gonna_tell_you_what_I_do*

Russian Heroes Leave For War In Crimea Mobilization
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ntEyLPizbjyU/

＂We want West to see this. Russia responded to the call.＂
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BRpQZjx2Og56/

I am wondering whether Russia can free the world from fascism. They can't
do it alone.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 9:01:10 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> > That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> > tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
> > is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
> > proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.
> I disagree.

We know that. Tom described how relativity models the situation.
He was not talking about your opinions.

> You assumed that a clock second is a universal interval of time in different frames and thus all clocks tick at the same rate......it is not.

Nevertheless this is the assumption that relativity makes. There
was a theory once due to Weyl (IIRC) that implied a varying second
the way you describe here (this was called at the time "the change of
gauge", eventually this term became associated with something
different (a certain transformations of Lagrangians in various
field theories)). But this sort of thing is very easily checked
experimentally and was disproved quickly (in the 1920s, again IIRC).

> Delta(t')=Gamma*Delta(t)
> The proper interpretation is that the observer does not know if the clock moving wrt him is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate or a faster rate.

No, this is not how it works. The way it works is how Tom
describes it.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

First Putin must leave Ukraine. Then we can discuss all those other
matters you mentioned (I agree with some of it but Russia must first
cease and desist and NEVER-EVER do a repeat performance. Enough
is enough, it has been for the civilised world nothing but trouble with
Russia for centuries. First thing they must do is stop charming
themselves with the idea that they are an "empire". This is GONE,
just like the Austro-Hungarian one, the Polish-Lithuanian one, the
British one, etc. etc. The difference is that all those countries have been
adult enough about their losses and moved on.

--
Jan

[Ibes Confortola]

JanPB wrote:

>> ＂We want West to see this. Russia responded to the call.＂
>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/BRpQZjx2Og56/
>>
>> I am wondering whether Russia can free the world from fascism. They
>> can't do it alone.
>
> First Putin must leave Ukraine. Then we can discuss all those other
> matters you mentioned (I agree with some of it but Russia must first
> cease

my friend wake up, "borderline" has to be thin. It's a border. The stolen
uKronazia is not thin in any way. They are nazis, since they STILL appear
with nazi symbols near zelenske, in their costumes.

krustchiov was born somewhere around, and therfore gave himself the
biggest country in the world, including Crimea.

[JanPB]

You are talking to yourself until Putin leaves Ukraine.

--
Jan

[Ibes Confortola]

JanPB wrote:

>> my friend wake up, "borderline" has to be thin. It's a border. The
>> stolen uKronazia is not thin in any way. They are nazis, since they
>> STILL appear with nazi symbols near zelenske, in their costumes.
>>
>> krustchiov was born somewhere around, and therfore gave himself the
>> biggest country in the world, including Crimea.
>
> You are talking to yourself until Putin leaves Ukraine.

It's not putin there, and it's Russian territory, which btw, the other
half looks polish to me, neighboring Hungary and Romania. Plus that they
killed alot of your grandparents and so on, I must conclude, you are an
idiot.

[whodat]

Nothing you wrote about in this posting is clear. It is mangled logic
as written. Have you been drinking alcohol or doing other brain
muddling substances?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 24 September 2022 at 23:13:02 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 9:01:10 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > > > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > > > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> > > That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> > > tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
> > > is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
> > > proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.
> > I disagree.
> We know that. Tom described how relativity models the situation.
> He was not talking about your opinions.
> > You assumed that a clock second is a universal interval of time in different frames and thus all clocks tick at the same rate......it is not.
> Nevertheless this is the assumption that relativity makes. There
> was a theory once due to Weyl (IIRC) that implied a varying second
> the way you describe here (this was called at the time "the change of
> gauge", eventually this term became associated with something
> different (a certain transformations of Lagrangians in various
> field theories)). But this sort of thing is very easily checked
> experimentally and was disproved quickly (in the 1920s, again IIRC).

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your bumch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

> No, this is not how it works. The way it works is how Tom
> describes it.

No, it doesn't. Anywy can check GPS - we're not FORCED
to your BEST WAY at all.

[Ken Seto]

Yes it is how it works. When comparing any two clocks (A and B) the following possibilities exist.
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate.
.2. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.
3. A and B accumulate accumukate clock seconds at the same rate.

SR is wrong and incomplete.by asserting that the observed clock is ONLY accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate.
IRT includes all possibilities and that's why it is a superior theory.
IRT is described in Chaper 4 od my book::
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Mel Barbieri]

whodat wrote:

>>> You are talking to yourself until Putin leaves Ukraine.
>>
>> It's not putin there, and it's Russian territory, which btw, the other
>> half looks polish to me, neighboring Hungary and Romania. Plus that
>> they killed alot of your grandparents and so on, I must conclude, you
>> are an idiot.
>
> Nothing you wrote about in this posting is clear. It is mangled logic

just you, a dementia hit imbecile, ignorign the context. And it's about a
map, fucking stoopid, obvious from the given and the former context.

get your shit out of here, you illiterate braindead stupid baboon.

[Nikki Baldini]

Ken Seto wrote:

> Yes it is how it works. When comparing any two clocks (A and B) the
> following possibilities exist.
> 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate.
> .2. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.
> 3. A and B accumulate accumukate clock seconds at the same rate.
>
> SR is wrong and incomplete.by asserting that the observed clock is ONLY
> accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate.
> IRT includes all possibilities and that's why it is a superior theory.
> IRT is described in Chaper 4 od my book::
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

what are the first 3 chapters for?? And you ignore the transmission and
the propagation delay. If you were THERE, the time would pass 100%
normally. Your theory is fake. You talk about a model, not theory.

[whodat]

On 9/25/2022 8:59 AM, Mel Barbieri wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>>>> You are talking to yourself until Putin leaves Ukraine.
>>>
>>> It's not putin there, and it's Russian territory, which btw, the other
>>> half looks polish to me, neighboring Hungary and Romania. Plus that
>>> they killed alot of your grandparents and so on, I must conclude, you
>>> are an idiot.
>>
>> Nothing you wrote about in this posting is clear. It is mangled logic
>
> just you, a dementia hit imbecile, ignorign the context. And it's about a
> map, fucking stoopid, obvious from the given and the former context.

Word salad has no context.

> get your shit out of here, you illiterate braindead stupid baboon.

Still drinking?

[Ken Seto]

Fuckig idiot.

[Sylvia Else]

On 16-Aug-22 1:50 am, Xinhang Shen wrote:

> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:18:15 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
>>> In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
>>> more slowly than a stationary clock.
>> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
>> tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
>> is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
>> proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.
>>

>> What is true is that an inertial frame used to measure a moving clock
>> will measure it as ticking more slowly than an identical clock at rest
>> in the frame. "Time dilation" is about measurements and how they are
>> made, not clocks varying their (proper) tick rates.
>>
>> [Note that it OUGHT to be obvious that to measure the tick
>> rate of a moving clock, one must observe it at least twice,
>> so one must have some method to relate multiple observations
>> AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS to each other. The standard way to do
>> that in physics is to relate them using an inertial frame.]
>>> Now I would like to know the slowdown of the moving clock is caused
>>> by its frequency becoming lower than that of the stationary clock or
>>> by its period becoming shorter than that of the stationary clock?
>> THINK about what you are asking -- if the period became shorter it would
>> speed up. But as I said above, neither the clock's frequency nor period
>> actually change; what changes is OTHER observers observations of them
>> (which manifestly do not affect the clock itself).
>>
>> Tom Roberts

> Everybody knows that the moving clock means the clock moving relative to the observer, which the observer sees runs more slowly than the clock stationary relative to him according to special relativity. Please answer the question: relative to the observer, does the frequency of the moving clock become lower than that of the stationary clock or its period become shorter than that of the stationary clock?

The observer measures the clock's period to be longer, and the clock's
frequency accordingly lower.

But "measures" is the operative word. As Tom indicates, nothing is
happening to the clock.

Sylvia.

[Volney]

Yes, Stupid Ken, you really are a fucki[n]g idiot, but that's not
important right now.

[whodat]

I understand what you are trying to say, but you're not stating it
correctly. As Tom indicates, the clock is moving. Still the clock
functions as it *always* does. Within its frame its rate has not
changed. Compared to other frames, its rate may be faster or slower.

[Ken Seto]

> happening to the clock. appekning

But something is happening to the moving source (clock).....the moving source (such as a sodium source) is detected to be emitting frequency at a lower rate by the observer.

[Volney]

No, Stupid Ken, you'll never understand. Nothing is happening to the
moving source. The effect is measured, and comes from effects on the
signals involved, not the source.

Since A measures B's clock as running slow and B measures A's clock as
running slow (inertial relative motion), there is no possible effect
happening to either source to cause this.

[Ken Seto]

Yes stupid Mike.......the frequency of th source is depending on its state of absolute motion. If the source accelerated and becomes inertial again, its frequency is changed. Gee you are so stupid.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 09:35:32 UTC+2, whodat wrote:

> I understand what you are trying to say, but you're not stating it
> correctly. As Tom indicates, the clock is moving. Still the clock
> functions as it *always* does. Within its frame its rate has not
> changed.

Anyone can check GPS, it's +4Cs radiation periods
on a satellite,, but facts mean nothing against faith.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 18:43:35 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Since A measures B's clock as running slow and B measures A's clock as
> running slow (inertial relative motion),

But since it's nothing but a gedanken fabrication, stupid Mike...

[Richard Hachel]

Le 26/09/2022 à 08:34, Sylvia Else a écrit :

> The observer measures the clock's period to be longer, and the clock's
> frequency accordingly lower.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?rOhoIPd-vEnehVbY6_ygsQzQZzE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> Sylvia.

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
₀₀₀
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=rOhoIPd-vEnehVbY6_ygsQzQZzE@jntp>

[Sylvia Else]

It's amazing that you contrive to use the operative word "detected" in
your misunderstanding.

Sylvia.

[Volney]

Vacuous assertions are not science.

If the source accelerated and becomes inertial again, its frequency is
changed. Gee you are so stupid.

Vacuous assertions are not science.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Yes, stupid Mike, they are.

[Ken Seto]

Stupid Mike, SR is not science. IRT is science. IRT is described in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Volney]

No, Stupid Ken, it is not. Your Muddle Mechanics contains nothing but
assertions. Vacuous assertions are not science. Meanwhile SR has
specific predictions, which are verified with scientific observations
and experimental data, so SR is science.

> IRT is described in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link:

> http://www.mоdelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Link is broken.

[Nikki Baldini]

whodat wrote:

>> map, fucking stoopid, obvious from the given and the former context.
>
> Word salad has no context.

stop talking imbecile. You are braindead.

[Ken Seto]

Yes, stupid Mike,
SR is not science because SR's two postulates are false as follows:
1. The PoR is false because clock time (a clock second) is not a universal interval of time in different frame.
2. The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock second is not a constant interval of time.

> > IRT is described in Chapter 4 of my book in the following link:
> > http://www.mоdelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

> verbal interval of time.
> Link is broken.

[JanPB]

Not even wrong.

> 2. The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock second is not a constant interval of time.

Not even wrong.

Complete gobbledygook. This group is full of mentally deranged individuals.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

as some insane gedanken bullshit.

[Nikki Baldini]

Ken Seto wrote:

> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> second is not a constant interval of time.

how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
second? You work with seconds which are not constant??

[Ken Seto]

Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
That means that a clock second in the primed frame is worth gamma(clock seconds) on the unprimed clock.
Or one-second of time on the primed clock is corresponded to gamma-seconds on the unprimed clock.

[Ken Seto]

> > 2. The sd th peed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock second is not a constant interval of time.

> Not even wrong.
>
> Complete gobbledygook. This group is full of mentally deranged individuals.

You don't even understand the concept of time.......so your comment is irrelevant. I suggest that you learn the meaning of time before you make your trashy comment.

[Dart Ruzzier]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
>> > second is not a constant interval of time.
>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
>
> Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
> That means that a clock second in the primed frame is worth gamma(clock
> seconds) on the unprimed clock.
> Or one-second of time on the primed clock is corresponded to
> gamma-seconds on the unprimed clock.

this guy is working with seconds which are not constant.

[Ken Seto]

That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).

[Ken Seto]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:

[Robel Vitali]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
>> > That means that a clock second in the primed frame is worth
>> > gamma(clock seconds) on the unprimed clock.
>> > Or one-second of time on the primed clock is corresponded to
>> > gamma-seconds on the unprimed clock.
>> this guy is working with seconds which are not constant.
>
> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents
> a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of
> time (absolute time).

give me the longest second you have, for me, to use that. Can you make a
second out of three seconds?? How many seconds would be that? Thank you in
advance.

are you communist?

[Robel Vitali]

so your second is not an *unit*?? It looks like you hate units. Your
numerous papers are without *units*?? Which one is the *unit* you trust
most? May I see your papers without your units? Which country are we
talking about??

[Robel Vitali]

they dropped two atomic bombs over your country, now blew up pipelines in
europe, and still it's not *state_terrorism*, but "military_action". What
can you do about it? Stop crying high prices.

Brother Nathanael: Stream Sabotage Revealed! - [29/09/2022]
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jj0P6Y2NPTK

[Volney]

Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different
values, or the newton has different values.

Besides, your claim is an ASSERTION, which has NO value in science
whatsoever, without supporting experimental evidence.

In reality, a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain Cs radiation
frequency, from a local Cs source. ALWAYS.

[Robel Vitali]

Volney wrote:

>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents
>> a specific interval of time (absolute time).
>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of
>> time (absolute time).
>>
> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different
> values, or the newton has different values.

they also are buying *_40%_* of their power plants atomic piles, from the
great Russian Federation. America even more. It means, the "sanction"
oriented europe is *_fucked_up_in_many_planes_*. Unbelievable, they stole
on *fake_money* everything from Russia.

[Ken Seto]

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> > That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> > At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >
> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram

> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617

> values, or the newton has different values.

Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch? The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock. This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!

[Volney]

On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
>>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
>>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
>>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
>>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
>>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
>>>
>> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
>> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
>> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
>> values, or the newton has different values.
>
> Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?

To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly.

> The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.

And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.

> This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.

Nope, another assertion, without evidence.

> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!

I *do* learn new physics, when it comes along. None have come from you.
None whatsoever. All you produce are assertions, and assertions are not
physics.

>
>>
>> Besides, your claim is an ASSERTION, which has NO value in science
>> whatsoever, without supporting experimental evidence.
>>
>> In reality, a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain Cs radiation
>> frequency, from a local Cs source. ALWAYS.

No comment?

[Burt Rotolo]

Volney wrote:

>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
>
> I *do* learn new physics, when it comes along. None have come from you.
> None whatsoever. All you produce are assertions, and assertions are not
> physics.

here we go, with dimensions 1D goes into 3D+t, then back again. Very deep,
transcendental. You guys don't undrestand dimensions around here. My
friend??

Borderline (Extended Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNja1RxmHvQ

[Burt Rotolo]

Volney wrote:

> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
>
> I *do* learn new physics, when it comes along. None have come from you.
> None whatsoever. All you produce are assertions, and assertions are not
> physics.

actually I grabbed it from a stream, much better version and quality than youtube, AH.FM. I can see they have it still

http://ah.fm/forum/showthread.php?102495-TEKNO-Sound-Escalation-227-with-Artento-Divini-on-AH-FM-15-09-2022

FIRST HOUR with TEKNO
01. Supermode - Tell Me Why (Meduza Remix)
02. Delerium - Silence (Stone Van Brooken & Pete K Edit)
03. Hel:sløwed & Polina Vita - Like A Ghost (Extended Mix)
04. D'Angello & Francis and Belle Humble - Gold (Extended Mix)
05. LTN & Hoenir V - Travels (Extended Mix)
06. Fisherman - Enterprise (Extended Mix)
07. Kay Wilder - Apollo (Extended Mix)
08. Norni - Fairy Dust (Extended Mix)
09. TEKNO, DJ T.H. & Amin Salmee - Castles Made Of Sand (Extended Mix)
10. The Prodigy - No Good (Matt Bukovski Bootleg)
11. Chakra - Love Shines Through (Maarten De Jong Remix)
*_12. MaRLo & Roxanne Emery - Borderline (Extended Mix)_*
13. Niels Van Gogh - Pulverturm (Code2 Rework)

[Burt Rotolo]

Volney wrote:

> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
>
>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
>
> I *do* learn new physics, when it comes along. None have come from you.
> None whatsoever. All you produce are assertions, and assertions are not
> physics.

I guess it comes again in a few minutes.

AH.FM

http://37.187.0.6:9000/listen.pls?sid=1

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 1 October 2022 at 21:33:51 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> >>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> >>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>
> >> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> >> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> >> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
> >> values, or the newton has different values.
> >
> > Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly.
> > The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
> Absolute time itself is your assertion.

Oh, stupid Mike, not only absolute time exists, but there
is many of them, and "GPS time" is one of them.
As a fanatic idiot, of course, you're going to die hard
denying the reality.

[Ken Seto]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/11/22 2:59 PM, Xinhang Shen wrote:
> > In special relativity, people always say that a moving clock ticks
> > more slowly than a stationary clock.
> That is wrong, because it is poorly phrased. The clock ITSELF does not
> tick more slowly, because clocks always tick at their usual rate -- that
> is, every clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
> proper time. This is so basic it is essentially tautological.
>
> What is true is that an inertial frame used to measure a moving clock
> will measure it as ticking more slowly than an identical clock at rest
> in the frame. "Time dilation" is about measurements and how they are
> made, not clocks varying their (proper) tick rates.

How do the observer measures the rate of a moving clock?
Do you mean predict ??
Also, does the observer assumes that he is at rest and the observed clock is doing the moving ??
Also, why is only the observed clock is doing the moving?
Why not the observer is doing the moving and the observed clock is stationary?
And also, why not both are doing the moving??

[Ken Seto]

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 3:33:51 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> >>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> >>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>
> >> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> >> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> >> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
> >> values, or the newton has different values.
> >
> > Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly

So this doesn't mean that the orbiting clock is running at different rate than the earth clock?
I think you are the one who is making assertions.
.nt of absolute time.

> > The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.

> Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.e only time exists.

You are wrong. Absolute time is the only time exists.
A clock second at different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.

> > This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
> > LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
> I *do* learn new physics,

No you don't/ You dismissed my new physics by assertions.

[Volney]

On 10/3/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 3:33:51 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
>>>>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
>>>>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
>>>>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
>>>>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
>>>>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
>>>>>
>>>> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
>>>> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
>>>> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
>>>> values, or the newton has different values.
>>>
>>> Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
>> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
>> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly
>
> So this doesn't mean that the orbiting clock is running at different rate than the earth clock?

Nope. It ticks at 1 second per second, like all valid clocks.

It is the signal from the satellite to earth which is affected. The
clock adjustment is simply to compensate for this by making the
satellite "clock" run slow, by the exact amount of the GR speedup.

> I think you are the one who is making assertions.

Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.

> .nt of absolute time.
>>> The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
>> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
>> Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.e only time exists.
>
> You are wrong. Absolute time is the only time exists.

Your assertion. Provide evidence for it or apologize for lying.

> A clock second at different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.

Assertion, thus invalid.

>>> This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
>> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
>>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
>> I *do* learn new physics,
> No you don't/ You dismissed my new physics by assertions.

You mean your fake "physics" of assertions.
Physics is not about making assertions and pretending that they are true.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 3 October 2022 at 18:06:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 10/3/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 3:33:51 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>>>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >>>>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >>>>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> >>>>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> >>>> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> >>>> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
> >>>> values, or the newton has different values.
> >>>
> >>> Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
> >> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
> >> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly
> >
> > So this doesn't mean that the orbiting clock is running at different rate than the earth clock?
> Nope. It ticks at 1 second per second, like all valid clocks.

Sure, it just has a different number of Cs periods than
your bunch of idiots predicted.

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 12:06:28 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 10/3/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 3:33:51 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>>>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >>>>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >>>>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> >>>>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> >>>> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> >>>> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
> >>>> values, or the newton has different values.
> >>>
> >>> Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
> >> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
> >> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly
> >
> > So this doesn't mean that the orbiting clock is running at different rate than the earth clock?
> Nope. It ticks at 1 second per second, like all valid clocks.

So are you claiming that a clock second is a universal interval of time?
Sorry I think not.
delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)

>
> It is the signal from the satellite to earth which is affected. The
> clock adjustment is simply to compensate for this by making the
> satellite "clock" run slow, by the exact amount of the GR speedup.

So this does not mean that an unadjusted orbiting clock is running at a faster rate?

> > I think you are the one who is making assertions.
> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.

Then GR text is wrong. If two clock accumulate different number of clock seconds between meetings....they are running at different rates during relative motion.

> > .nt of absolute time.
> >>> The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
> >> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
> >> Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.e only time exists.
> >
> > You are wrong. Absolute time is the only time exists.
> Your assertion. Provide evidence for it or apologize for lying.
> > A clock second at different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.
> Assertion, thus invalid.
> >>> This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
> >> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
> >>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
> >> I *do* learn new physics,
> > No you don't/ You dismissed my new physics by assertions.
> You mean your fake "physics" of assertions.
> Physics is not about making assertions and pretending that they are true.

cording to you:
You guys are the king of assertion......according to you, clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is not due to them running at different rates.

[Douglass Nervetti]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.
>
> Then GR text is wrong. If two clock accumulate different number of
> clock seconds between meetings....they are running at different rates
> during relative motion.

nonsense. They are just out of sync. Travelling away makes their sync
vanish, but their clocks clocks the same. The most you can say. Moreover,
his *roy_master* putted some students to "cleanup" some manuscripts of
Einstine. They came back saying, "we can't, what Einstine wrote is totally
nonsense". His *roy_masters* then said "that's why we put YOU to cleanup in
Relativity".

[Douglass Nervetti]

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:43 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> What is true is that an inertial frame used to measure a moving clock
>> will measure it as ticking more slowly than an identical clock at rest
>> in the frame. "Time dilation" is about measurements and how they are
>> made, not clocks varying their (proper) tick rates.
>
> How do the observer measures the rate of a moving clock?
> Do you mean predict ?? Also, does the observer assumes that he is at rest
> and the observed clock is doing the moving ??

we agree, the khazar khakholes of europe and the khazar khakholes of
americaca had the sanctions not strong enough, so these *state_terrorists*
are going to sabotage *undefended* _life_essential_ infrastructure. Pigs.
Goys, you may not sit with at your table. They eat like dogs. Once again,
the things in the Bible shows up to be 100% correct.

UK Column News - 3rd October 2022
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iLho4z9OYNLt/

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 12:06:28 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 10/3/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 3:33:51 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2022 11:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/30/2022 10:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, Nikki Baldini wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The speed of light is not a constant in all frames because a clock
> >>>>>>> second is not a constant interval of time.
> >>>>>> how is that a second if not constant?? Is that a second or it's not a
> >>>>>> second? You work with seconds which are not constant??
> >>>>> That's right, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock, represents a specific interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>> At different frame a clock second represents a different interval of time (absolute time).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, a second is a UNIT. It MUST be the same everywhere. Saying
> >>>> that there are different kinds of seconds is like saying the kilogram
> >>>> has different values depending on whatever, or the coulomb has different 1617
> >>>> values, or the newton has different values.
> >>>
> >>> Hey stupid Mike, how come they had to offset the GPS second by 4.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation before the launch?
> >> To compensate for general relativity effects on the signal from the
> >> satellite to earth. As you have been told. Repeatedly
> >
> > So this doesn't mean that the orbiting clock is running at different rate than the earth clock?
> Nope. It ticks at 1 second per second, like all valid clocks.

So you assumed that a clock second is a universal interval of time? I got bad news for you: it is not. They had to add 4.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second to make it contains the same amount of TIME as the earth second. This might be too complicated for you to comprehend.

>
> It is the signal from the satellite to earth which is affected. The
> clock adjustment is simply to compensate for this by making the
> satellite "clock" run slow, by the exact amount of the GR speedup.

> > I think you are the This might be too stone who is making assertions.

> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.
> > .nt of absolute time.
> >>> The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
> >> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
> >> Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.e only time exists.
> >
> > You are wrong. Absolute time is the only time exists.
> Your assertion. Provide evidence for it or apologize for lying.
> > A clock second at different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.
> Assertion, thus invalid.
> >>> This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
> >> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
> >>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
> >> I *do* learn new physics,
> > No you don't/ You dismissed my new physics by assertions.
> You mean your fake "physics" of assertions.

> Physics is not about making assertions and pretending that they are true.atvistsi

You relativists are the king of assertion.

[lostgold]

chill there

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 2:42:02 PM UTC-4, Douglass Nervetti wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.
> >
> > Then GR text is wrong. If two clock accumulate different number of
> > clock seconds between meetings....they are running at different rates
> > during relative motion.
> nonsense. They are just out of sync. Travelling away makes their sync
> vanish, but their clocks clocks the same.

Hey idiot, what does out of synch mean between two clocks?
Does it mean that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates?

[Douglass Nervetti]

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 2:42:02 PM UTC-4, Douglass Nervetti wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>> >> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.
>> >
>> > Then GR text is wrong. If two clock accumulate different number of
>> > clock seconds between meetings....they are running at different rates
>> > during relative motion.
>> nonsense. They are just out of sync. Travelling away makes their sync
>> vanish, but their clocks clocks the same.
>
> Hey idiot, what does out of synch mean between two clocks?
> Does it mean that they are accumulating clock seconds at different
> rates?

you would know if were working in the business. It means just that, you
cannot synch them, but adjust, up or down your measurement to mimic the
synch. But the clock are OUT of synch, fucking stoopid. You steal theories
and models like a pervert.

[Volney]

No, I know the second is a unit, like the kilogram or coulomb, and is
the same for everyone. There is only one kind of second, "clock second"
is silly.

> I got bad news for you: it is not.

Assertions have zero value in science.

> They had to add 4.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second to make it contains the same amount of TIME as the earth second.

Nope. Only one kind of second. BTW the satellite clock with
9,192,631,774.1 Cs cycles/tick isn't ticking seconds.

> This might be too complicated for you to comprehend.

GR is *certainly* too complicated for *you* to comprehend. You keep
repeating the same old broken babble.

>
>>
>> It is the signal from the satellite to earth which is affected. The
>> clock adjustment is simply to compensate for this by making the
>> satellite "clock" run slow, by the exact amount of the GR speedup.
>>> I think you are the This might be too stone who is making assertions.
>> Nope, this is straight from any good GR text.
>>> .nt of absolute time.
>>>>> The reason: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the earth clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock.
>>>> And once again, that is an ASSERTION with no supporting evidence.
>>>> Absolute time itself is your assertion. Assertions are not evidence.e only time exists.
>>>
>>> You are wrong. Absolute time is the only time exists.
>> Your assertion. Provide evidence for it or apologize for lying.
>>> A clock second at different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.
>> Assertion, thus invalid.
>>>>> This makes the GPS and the earth clocks are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
>>>> Nope, another assertion, without evidence.
>>>>> LEARN SOME NEW PHYSICS !!!!!!
>>>> I *do* learn new physics,
>>> No you don't/ You dismissed my new physics by assertions.
>> You mean your fake "physics" of assertions.
>> Physics is not about making assertions and pretending that they are true.atvistsi
>
> You relativists are the king of assertion.

Nope. Real physicists have observations and experimental evidence to
support their models. You don't.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Observations of gedanken twins are supporting your
Shit incredibly well, indeed. In the meantime in the
real world, however, forbidden by your insane gurus
GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-05 06:18:26 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

>>>>> [ ... ]

> Observations of gedanken twins are supporting your
> Shit incredibly well, indeed. In the meantime in the
> real world, however, forbidden by your insane gurus
> GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> clocks always did.

502


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 08:45:55 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-05 06:18:26 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> >>>>> [ ... ]
> > Observations of gedanken twins are supporting your
> > Shit incredibly well, indeed. In the meantime in the
> > real world, however, forbidden by your insane gurus
> > GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> > clocks always did.
> 502

Hope for 1000.

[Ken Seto]

Hey stupid Mike......A kilogram weighs differently on the moon. Similarly a clock second represents a different interval of time on the moon. Gee you are so fucking stupid. I told you that this is too complex for you to comprehend.

[Cesario De rege]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> No, I know the second is a unit, like the kilogram or coulomb, and is
>> the same for everyone. There is only one kind of second, "clock second"
>> is silly.
>
> Hey stupid Mike......A kilogram weighs differently on the moon.

hey, fucking stoopid, a kilogram is a *mass_unit*, not weights unit.
Weights is about applied forces, fucking stoopid, W=mg.

[whodat]

Tell me, did Ken write something that was wrong?

[Cesario De rege]

it's about the constancy of units, idiot. Stop snipping the context. You
fucking idiot.

[lostgold]

why are you angry over a small error he made

[whodat]

I asked you a question that you apparently decided not to answer, so
I'll ask it again, Did Ken write something that was wrong?

You are aware that subject drift is a well established and accepted
practice in Usenet, aren't you? A subsequent poster can drift the topic
but can not tell an earlier poster what to write. This is a cooperative
venture, after all.

If topic drift weren't an important aspect of Usenet, it would have
completely shut down after the first few weeks or at most months, yet
here we are. Please note that I am not telling you how/what to post.

You are perfectly free to continue to acquire people who don't like you.

There are other alternatives, of course. Only you can choose which
alternative to take.

[whodat]

Are you sure he made an error? They are apparently in dispute mode and
this is something akin to trying to separate two fighting dogs,
generally not advisable. I was once married into a family that was in
some ways similar. When two of them got into a dispute it was best to
leave them to it Otherwise they would set aside their fight to merge
efforts by turning on you.

Who says humans can't be primeval? Admittedly there are events that
raise a question about the humanity of some posters.

[Ken Seto]

Hey fuckhead, a clock second is an absolute time unit at the rest frame of the clock.
This means that a clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time at the
rest frame of the clock. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Volney]

Not relevant. A kilogram is a unit of MASS (not weight), it is a certain
amount of matter. My point is that a unit of time, the second, is the
same for everyone, because it's a unit of time, and has a specific
definition which is the same for everyone. By being a defined unit, a
kilogram is the same everywhere, for everyone, just like the second is,
just like the meter is, just like the coulomb is etc.

> Similarly a clock second represents a different interval of time on the moon.

No, it does not. If the moon observer has a Cs clock with him, a second
is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine transition time.

> Gee you are so fucking stupid. I told you that this is too complex for you to comprehend.

No, Stupid Ken, GR is much too complex for YOU to understand. You can't
even do fourth grade level math!

[Volney]

Yes he did. I was discussing fixed scientific units, and mentioned the
kilogram as a defined unit of mass. Ken tried to deflect by stating the
weight of a kilogram mass on the moon isn't the same as on earth. That's
like saying the second is different on the moon because a pendulum which
swings with a frequency of once per second on earth swings with a
different frequency on the moon.

[Volney]

On 10/5/2022 2:34 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 10/5/2022 11:41 AM, lostgold wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 12:32:54 PM UTC-4, Cesario De rege
>> wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/5/2022 10:14 AM, Cesario De rege wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I know the second is a unit, like the kilogram or coulomb,
>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>> the same for everyone. There is only one kind of second, "clock
>>>>>>> second"
>>>>>>> is silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey stupid Mike......A kilogram weighs differently on the moon.
>>>>>
>>>>> hey, fucking stoopid, a kilogram is a *mass_unit*, not weights unit.
>>>>> Weights is about applied forces, fucking stoopid, W=mg.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, did Ken write something that was wrong?
>>> it's about the constancy of units, idiot. Stop snipping the context. You
>>> fucking idiot.
>> why are you angry over a small error he made
>
> Are you sure he made an error?

It is an error. Weight is not mass, it is a force. In this case the
weights of a kilogram are different on the moon and earth because the
force formula F=GMm/r^2 has different values of M (mass of earth/moon)
and r (distance to center). But little "m" (a kilogram) is the same.

I believe the English unit pound is technically a force, not a mass,
there are other units pound-mass or slug which are mass units, and a
pound is really the weight of a pound-mass on the earth surface.

> They are apparently in dispute mode and
> this is something akin to trying to separate two fighting dogs,
> generally not advisable. I was once married into a family that was in
> some ways similar. When two of them got into a dispute it was best to
> leave them to it Otherwise they would set aside their fight to merge
> efforts by turning on you.
>
> Who says humans can't be primeval? Admittedly there are events that
> raise a question about the humanity of some posters.

The situations police tend to hate the most are domestic disputes
between spouses/lovers. They tend to put the dispute aside and join
forces against the police when they show up.

[whodat]

I agree he was deflecting from the original point. However a kilogram
does weigh differently on the moon than it does on earth. Moon gravity
is approximately 1/6 of that on the earth.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this because it
isn't my argument that you're challenging, We agree on the basics, and
while the statement Ken made was actually correct his argument was off
point, so you're both right but in different ways. Let's let this
discussion die here. Thanks.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 6 October 2022 at 21:40:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> No, it does not. If the moon observer has a Cs clock with him, a second
> is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine transition time.

Sorry, stupid Mike, anyone can check GPS - a second
is not what your bunch of idiots lie it is.

[lostgold]

I'm going to stop you right there did you just make a mistake. it's more like 8th grade

[Ken Seto]

Stupid Mike.....it sure is relevant.

>A kilogram is a unit of MASS (not weight), it is a certain
> amount of matter.

Similarly, a clock second is a specific unit of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.

>My point is that a unit of time, the second, is the
> same for everyone, because it's a unit of time, and has a specific

> definition which is the same for everyone. second is a uni
No, a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
You are trying to assert that a clock second is a universal interval of absolute time.... it is not.

>By being a defined unit, a t frame.
You don't understand the concept of TIME.

> kilogram is the same everywhere, for everyone, just like the second is,
> just like the meter is, just like the coulomb is etc.

No a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.

> > Similarly a clock second represents a different interval of time on the moon.
> No, it does not. If the moon observer has a Cs clock with him, a second
> is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine transition time.

Here you wrongly asserted that a transition of the Cs atom represent the same amount of absolute time in different frame......it does not. A transition of the Cs atom is dependent on the speed of arrival of the energy required to complete a transition. And the speed of arrival of the required energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. So you see, you relativists let Einstein fooled you guys for a 110 years......sad.

[Volney]

No, Stupid Ken. A kilogram is the same everywhere. On the earth, on the
moon, in deep space where it has no weight, everywhere. Same for the
second. Same everywhere.

>
>> A kilogram is a unit of MASS (not weight), it is a certain
>> amount of matter.
> Similarly, a clock second is a specific unit of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock.

No, Stupid Ken. That is your assertion, and assertions such as that have
no value in science.

>
>> My point is that a unit of time, the second, is the
>> same for everyone, because it's a unit of time, and has a specific
>> definition which is the same for everyone. second is a uni
> No, a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.

Again, that is your assertion, and your assertion conflicts with the
actual definition of the second. Your assertion is worthless.

> You are trying to assert that a clock second is a universal interval of absolute time.... it is not.

The second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 periods of a specific Cs
frequency from a local source. DEFINED. Definitions cannot be incorrect.

>
>> By being a defined unit, a t frame.
> You don't understand the concept of TIME.

I certainly do, and I know it has nothing to do with any of your
assertions like "absolute time".

>
>> kilogram is the same everywhere, for everyone, just like the second is,
>> just like the meter is, just like the coulomb is etc.

> No a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.

No matter how often you repeat your assertion, it remains a false assertion.

>
>>> Similarly a clock second represents a different interval of time on the moon.
>> No, it does not. If the moon observer has a Cs clock with him, a second
>> is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine transition time.
>
> Here you wrongly asserted that a transition of the Cs atom represent the same amount of absolute time in different frame......

I never even mentioned any "absolute time". I would not do so, since
"absolute time" doesn't even exist, other than in your addled mind.

> it does not. A transition of the Cs atom is dependent on the speed of arrival of the energy required to complete a transition.

Another assertion with no observational evidence behind it.

> And the speed of arrival of the required energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.

Yet another assertion with no evidence.

> So you see, you relativists let Einstein fooled you guys for a 110 years......sad.

Actual physicists aren't fooled at all by your assertions. One day
you'll kick the bucket and will be completely forgotten, other than
perhaps by old-timers in that group saying "Hey, does anyone remember
that crank Ken Seto and his stupid Muddle Mechanics?" Maybe. Your
internet bill will go unpaid and your online copy will vanish forever.

[Ken Seto]

It appears that you ae not capable comprehending complex ideas.....no need to waste each other's time.

[Urbano Stilo]

your theory is not even a theory of half of the everything. EM is not a
force, fucking stupid.