 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never want you to know.
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity to get it's most accurate reading. They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has to use gravity to return down and be counted as one second. If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down, It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear. It simply won't work right. Isn't that funny? Want to read about it also. http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm Check out the sentence that shows up just above the graphic So, Everyone.. laugh at the time changing rate morons of relativity that tell me the clock did not malfunction, since .. they really are clueless about a simple clock malfunction when g-forces are changed around them. LOL Laugh loud and proud! HA HA HAHA HA HAHA Maybe if they yell at NIST enough and pay them a pretty penny, NIST will remove that factual point made on the website. Or just maybe NIST will be smarter than them and allow science to finally drop this time travel bullshit. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 13, 8:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity > to get it's most accurate reading. Learn about apostrophe's and they're use's, you blithering imbecile. > On Jul 13, 8:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity >> to get it's most accurate reading. > > Learn about apostrophe's and they're use's, you blithering imbecile. Thanks, It is nice that is all you could find wrong. You call people that make such a small mistake a blithering idiot. The relativists must be complete utter brainless morons if I am just a blithering idiot. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 14 Jul, 04:31, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity > to get it's most accurate reading. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and allow science to finally drop this time travel bullshit. > :) Atoms have to be suspended in space so that the vibrations can take place over a long period of time. This is nothing to do with Relativity, it is all about Quantum Theory and line broadening. Atoms MUST be in free fall to give narrow lines. I mean lines narrow enough for real accuracy. This is what I mean. The antirelativity case is totally hollow. Things are thrown up which a moments thought would shoot down immediately. The CIA and the Black Sun also use smear as their stock in trade. If Relativity is true energy cannot folw from Aldebaran. Only from "aldebaran khyyid" who works out the train timetables for the concentration camps. - Ian Parker > On 14 Jul, 04:31, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > MUST be in free fall to give narrow lines. I mean lines narrow enough > for real accuracy. It has to do with the relativists view that time slows down. Time does not slow down, the clock is malfunctioning. And it is being caused by the same basic malfunction that goofs up a pendulum clock The Anti-relativity case is still open for closure. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 14 Jul, 15:44, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On 14 Jul, 04:31, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > The Anti-relativity case is still open for closure. > :) Touché. These people are not the only ones. It was NOT a small mistake. Your whole posting was devoted to an erroneous idea. I might say you do the same. You are all in the diasinformation industry. Some thime ago I posted on the question of WMD in the US. I mentioned the Anthrax attacks which occured just after 9/11. I got a few details wrong, such as the precise senators who became ill. That WAS a small detail. The substantive fact was that there was an Antrax attack that no one has explained. Was it carried out by the CIA? Who else, it certaily wasn't Al Qua'ida. Your posting however is ALL wrong. - Ian Parker > Touché. These people are not the only ones. It was NOT a small > mistake. Your whole posting was devoted to an erroneous idea. No, My posting is devoted to the idea that the "atom" is not any more immune to g-force effects than any "group" of atoms would be such as a group of atoms that form a pendulum. It stands as a fact, not merely an "idea". And if you can't get such a fact, then you are truly brainwashed beyond help. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Touchi. These people are not the only ones. It was NOT a small >> mistake. Your whole posting was devoted to an erroneous idea. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would be such as a group of atoms that form a pendulum. > It stands as a fact, not merely an "idea". Atoms in free-fall experience no weight, no acceleration effects, just as a person in free-fall has no weight. Atomic clocks in orbit have two relativistic effects that must be adjusted for. One is due to gravitational potential and the other due to velocity. The two effects go in opposite directions, which means a strictly g-force related effect is ruled out empirically. >"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote : >Atoms in free-fall experience no weight, no acceleration >effects, just as a person in free-fall has no weight. If it truly were experiencing no acceleration. It would nto be falling at all Greg. Maybe you will get that some day. :) >Atomic clocks in orbit have two relativistic effects that >must be adjusted for. One is due to gravitational potential >and the other due to velocity. The two effects go in opposite >directions, which means a strictly g-force related effect is >ruled out empirically. Wrong, You apparently are still ignoring the acceleration wrt Earth. Again, you simply keep ignoring the clock malfunctioned because of a simple acceleration you ignore and call "spacetime curvature" instead. Simple as that. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote : >> Atoms in free-fall experience no weight, no acceleration [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It would nto be falling at all Greg. > Maybe you will get that some day. James has the all the logical accumen of a radish. The equivalence of inertial mass and gavitational mass ensures that any effect due to gravity is exactly cancelled by the acceleration experienced by a freefalling body. One wonders if James would think that another body firing rockets and thus accelerating with respect to a freefalling clock would cause the clock to change rate, too. After all, the obersver in the rocket would see the clock accelerating. >> Atomic clocks in orbit have two relativistic effects that >> must be adjusted for. One is due to gravitational potential [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong, > You apparently are still ignoring the acceleration wrt Earth. James once again demonstrates his vegetable-like powers of logical deduction. The acceleration of the clock with respect to the Earth is due to the gravitational potential. > Again, you simply keep ignoring the clock malfunctioned > because of a simple acceleration you ignore and call "spacetime > curvature" instead. There he goes again, right on time. Whenever James can't (or won't) understand something he invokes his "spacetime curvature" or "rubber ruler" ploy as though it were an argument. James just won't accept the fact that *regardless* of the gravitational potential (or acceleration) at a given orbital height, there is an additional correction purely for velocity. > Simple as that. Apparently not simple enough for James. >The equivalence of inertial mass and gavitational >mass ensures that any effect due to gravity is >exactly cancelled by the acceleration experienced >by a freefalling body. An inertial mass in accelerated form is not "inertial". It is being accelerated. DUH! You truly are lost in your own bunk. As the acceleration increases, the relative mass increases Too bad you can't get that simple fact. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> The equivalence of inertial mass and gavitational >> mass ensures that any effect due to gravity is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > An inertial mass in accelerated form is not "inertial". > It is being accelerated. James *still* can't get his brain around the concept of inertia and inertial motion. "Spaceman" <Spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:sP6dnXDDMegFLebVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@comcast.com >> The equivalence of inertial mass and gavitational >> mass ensures that any effect due to gravity is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > An inertial mass in accelerated form is not "inertial". > It is being accelerated. James *still* can't get his brain around the concept of inertia and inertial motion. Greg thinks an object under forces other than forward motion only are still only moving under an inertial motion force. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > "Spaceman" <Spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > news:sP6dnXDDMegFLebVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@comcast.com [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Greg thinks an object under forces other than forward motion only > are still only moving under an inertial motion force. Amazing. James *still* thinks that velocity is a force. "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:487bc2a9$0$26123 >Amazing. James *still* thinks that velocity is a force. Poor Greg like to ignore that when the velocity is occuring in an orbit, (constant changing angle) is is not a "constant" velocity at all. And Greg always has to say I said things I did not say. Poor Greg, He will never just admit the clock malfunctioned because he does not even get how clocks work yet. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 14, 5:11 pm, "Spaceman" <Space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in an orbit, (constant changing angle) is is not a > "constant" velocity at all. Why, Spaceman, that's absolutely correct! You've figured out something. A circular orbit can have constant *speed* but never constant velocity. And so when ever something is in circular motion, there is always acceleration: centripetal acceleration, toward the center. > And Greg always has to say I said things I did not say. > Poor Greg, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman >Why, Spaceman, that's absolutely correct! You've figured out >something. A circular orbit can have constant *speed* but never >constant velocity. And so when ever something is in circular motion, >there is always acceleration: centripetal acceleration, toward the >center. PD, I always knew that. (Including long ago when I told you that speed and velocity are the same things.) Orignally I was actually trying to get such information out of a.sholes like you and Greg, instead of the typicle "that is wrong, you know nothing" answers that you give. So anyways. You still don't get that such an "orbit" is not actually inertial motion. Or do you still think inertial motions can have a constantly changing acceleration from the velocity constantly changing? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 14, 5:53 pm, "Spaceman" <Space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >Why, Spaceman, that's absolutely correct! You've figured out > >something. A circular orbit can have constant *speed* but never [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > PD, > I always knew that. Good. > (Including long ago when I told you that speed and velocity are the same > things.) > Orignally I was actually trying to get such information out of a.sholes like > you and Greg, instead of the typicle "that is wrong, you know nothing" > answers that you give. And how did you go about trying to get that information? Was it by asking a straightforward question, like "What's the difference between speed and velocity?" or was it like "LOL, you don't understand that speed and velocity are the same thing. Moron. LOL. :)" > So anyways. > You still don't get that such an "orbit" is not actually inertial motion. Depends whether you include gravity in the forces that are acting. > Or do you still think inertial motions can have a constantly changing > acceleration [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 14, 5:53 pm, "Spaceman" <Space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - PD, from your post I believe you to be a bright guy, so.... SPACEMAN was in my mind trolling to have someone explain to him how an atomic clock operates. I refused, because you can find this in any book. But what really surpised me was the fact that in this relativly long thread, not a single post attempted to offer even a simplified expanation of an atomic clock, and why it is unaffected by gravity. I don't seem to remember the colorful phase 'nuclear resonance' or 'emission spectra' even once being mentioned by anyone. Every response in this thread that I've read consisted of meaningless armwaving and empty, meaningless claims post by people who have absolutely no clue as to how an atomic clock functions. God forbid were anyone to ask this newsgroup how a laser operates! Sorry guys, by posting an incorrect hypothesis, SPACEMAN managed to make every one that responded to be clueless. Friends, I know this dumb act. I've done business with clever guys in the South, where the "I'm just a dumb farmer' routine works for a while. But for only a while!!!! Listening James? Harry C. On Jul 14, 4:55 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > Friends, I know this dumb act. I've done business with clever guys in > the South, where the "I'm just a dumb farmer' routine works for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Harry C. It isn't an act when he does it for years on end. James really is that stupid - though you are right when you say he's trolling for an education. Though the "I'm just a dumb farmer..." thing, for some reason, makes me smile. > On Jul 14, 4:55 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stupid - though you are right when you say he's trolling for an > education. f.ck Off Eric, You are the brainwashed one that truly has no clue. You still think there is no diameter possible for a great circle. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > On Jul 14, 4:55 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Though the "I'm just a dumb farmer..." thing, for some reason, makes > me smile. Trust me Eric, it's real. I believe that the "Dumb Farmer" traces back to southern lawyers who were not only very skilled in their trade, but the phrase "I'm just a dumb farmer" was their caveat for warning you that they were about to destroy your case in court so you would see it coming. Actually Eric, I was rasied in the north, so when I was assigned responsibility for the signal and automitic control system on the Wahington DC subway system (WMATA), I expererinced that phrase for the very first time. I was sitting alone on one side of the table during a design review, and 6 WMATA personell were siting on the other side. That was back around 1972, and I still remember the names of two of the players on the WMATA team, Art Luhrs and Ralph Sheldon. Now Raph was ex CTA (Chicago) and Art was an old mainline railroad guy who had worked his way up from a 'track gang' to become one of the key players in the design of the Washington Metro. I quickly learned that whenever Art prefaced a question with "I'm just a dumb farmer but..." you knew when to pay attention and to expect an attack. Art was very skilled in his attacks, and actually contributed much to the design of the Metro system. Art would usually ask some rather searching questions, usually devoted to turn around movments at the termal stations, since he clearly doubted the ability of our computer programmer to handle them, so I would dutifully explain the turn-around algorithm to him. Evidently, I once once in my life did something right, since the firs (GRS) promoted me and gave me a corner office that had an outer reception room complete with a beautiful young secretary. Strange job for a physicist I agree, and my wife felt similarly. So, within a year found myself sitting in one of those glorious cubicles at Ratheon in Sudbury MA, This post is a little off topic I realize, and the only message is that if you love physics, never get married. Over 50 years, I've never held a job that my wife approved of. She didn't approve of my hours in research at Forrestal, nor the long days at Kodak, nor the travel and personal benefits while working at GRS, She hated Raytheon because of both the hours and the travel, which was often to war zones. Amazing isn't it that we celebrated our 49th anniverstary last friday (July 11, 2008). Eric, if you earn your degree in physics, this could be your future. Harry C. On Jul 15, 9:06 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > Eric, if you earn your degree in physics, this could be your future. > > Harry C. Doing odd jobs that are intellectually fulfilling? I can live with that. I'm practically setting myself up to be a system builder for scientists who need computational power and someone who knows what the hell the scientists are talking about. Check out http://137.229.100.26/ganglia Considering the flak I get for going to school in Alaska from the idiot gallery here, I'm considering "I'm just a dumb Alaskan..." “ 137.229.100.26 ” might someday point to: “ Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ”. If you were into Computer Science: “ CS.UAF.EDU/2007/powerwall ”. RocksClusters.ORG is at the San Diego Supercomputer Center, SDSC.EDU. “ Rocks Core Development is sponsored by an NSF award. ” “ Linux clusters across NSF communities ” “ National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure ” Google employs similar clusters, as you know. Some of your Pics: www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/UAF welcome sign_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Measuring Big G with a Torsion Balance by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Measuring the Universal Gravitational Constant by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Beowolf Project by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Beowolf Project 2 by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/The Globe Room, Geophysical Inst by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/GI Hallway by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg [ G.I. = Geophysical Institute ] www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/GI in summer by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/GI in summer2 by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/GI looking Southeast by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Stonehinge Alaska Style by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Ice Art - IPY by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg [ I.P.Y. = International Polar Year ] www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Ice Art IPY by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/GBG Ostrich Ferns by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg [ G.B.G. = Georgeson Botanical Garden ] www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/LARS (Large Animal Research Station) by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/LARS Sunflowers by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/LARS tractors by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Moose sign by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Satellite Receiving Antenna by Eric Gisse_JPG.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Satellite Dish by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/T Field Trail by Eric Gise_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/T Field Dish by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/T Field Dish 2 by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/T Field Dish 3 by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/UAF Museum by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/UAF Roundabout by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/Upper Campus by Eric Gisse_jpg.jpg Jeff?Relf wrote: > â 137.229.100.26 â might someday point to: â Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU â. > If you were into Computer Science: â CS.UAF.EDU/2007/powerwall â. (â*$% *â$&# #*^Q_& *(#$&Qâ Idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 If your Win98 box was as good as a publicly-funded kiosk .. ha ha .. you'd be able to see the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode ) in: “ Jeff_Relf@2008_Jul17_6.10PN ”. Hint: You can look up Message-IDs this way: “ Google.COM/groups?selm=Jeff_Relf@2008_Jul17_6.10PN ”. Move the link above to your URL-bar ( FireFox 3 or IE7 ), you know .. that thing at the top of your web browser, where you can type in web addresses. ( I drag-n-drop it ) Assuming you can manage that ( i.e. non-clickable links ), here's a screenshot of what it looks like to me: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Groups_Post.PNG ”. Notice that the URL bar has the following in it ( and it works ): “ www.UAF.EDU/physics/Album/images/UAF welcome sign_jpg.jpg ”. One must use the “ www.UAF.EDU ” as “ UAF.EDU ” doesn't work .. lame ! Recently, I made a lot of changes to the web pages I visit. I've become real good at editing common web pages; it taks a few minutes of my time .. then no ads, no junk. Screenshots ( and the original pages ): Googling for “ Event ” looks like this: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google.PNG ”. “ Google.COM/search?q=define:Event ” looks like: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/GoogleDefine.PNG ”. “ Dictionary.COM/browse/Event ” looks like: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Dictionary.PNG ”. “ WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Sun#Atmosphere ” looks like: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Wiki.PNG ”. “ Images.Google.COM/images?q=Botan ” comes up like: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Images.PNG ”. Using Google Groups to browse a thread looks like this ( no hidden quotes ): “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/ShowQuotes.PNG ”. Google.COM/group/alt.astronomy/browse_thread/thread/5ec5e63534ef22ce/985578489f0da10c My userContent.CSS ( CSS 2.1 ) and userChrome.CSS for FireFox 3.0: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/userContent.CSS JeffRelf.F-M.FM/userChrome.CSS ”. The font overrides in userContent.CSS might not work unless User.JS has: “ user_pref("browser.display.use_document_colors", true ); user_pref("browser.display.use_document_fonts", 1 ); ”. Also, for some random reason, my theme for Windows Vista takes priority over my “ userContent.CSS ”; so you'd have to use a light on black theme like I do, or you wouldn't get the effect you see in my screenshots. My Theme for Vista: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Jeff_Relf.Theme ”. [snip] Stop being so goddamn stupid. “ Stupid ” is .. Uncle Al being unable to read or write UTF-8, something even the dumbest terminals ( kiosks ) can do. “ Stupid ” is .. UAF.EDU returning a “ Network Timeout ”. ( Google.COM just works, no need to tack on the “ www. ” prefix ) “ Stupid ” is .. you responding to my 58 line post with nothing but the word “ stupid ” ( like Uncle Al's “ Idiot ” ). “ Stupid ” is .. you always starting your posts with duplicates from a header everone already knows about, like this: “ On Jul 17, 7:14 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote: ”. “ Stupid ” is .. you dwelling on the very thing you claim to hate: “ non-textbook physics ”, to the exclusion of what you claim to love: textbook physics. > " Stupid " is .. Uncle Al being unable to read or write UTF-8, > something even the dumbest terminals ( kiosks ) can do. You make a lot of assumptions. > " Stupid " is .. UAF.EDU returning a " Network Timeout ". > ( Google.COM just works, no need to tack on the " www. " prefix ) Have you considered that the network is simply configured to not return pings to the exterior network? You don't know anything about network security, so the answer is probably "no". > " Stupid " is .. you responding to my 58 line post with > nothing but the word " stupid " ( like Uncle Al's " Idiot " ). No, I said "Stop being so goddamn stupid." > " Stupid " is .. you always starting your posts with duplicates > from a header everone already knows about, like this: > " On Jul 17, 7:14 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote: ". Its' called a standard, stupid. Have you heard of "standards" yet, or do you seek to constantly reinvent the wheel whether you are wanted to or not? > " Stupid " is .. you dwelling on > the very thing you claim to hate: " non-textbook physics ", > to the exclusion of what you claim to love: textbook physics. Wrong again, stupid. Very little of what interests me is printed comprehensively to any degree in textbooks. > " 137.229.100.26 " might someday point to: " Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ". It already does, ninny. [root@physics-cluster ~]# hostname physics-cluster.uaf.edu > If you were into Computer Science: " CS.UAF.EDU/2007/powerwall ". -1, Stupid. The cluster is for computation, not display. > RocksClusters.ORG is at the San Diego Supercomputer Center, SDSC.EDU. > " Rocks Core Development is sponsored by an NSF award. " > " Linux clusters across NSF communities " > " National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure " > > Google employs similar clusters, as you know. Some of your Pics: You are an unsettling little man. Were you not such a freakshow at so many level's I would've visited you when I was in Seattle. [snip] I didn't say “ S.UAF.EDU/2007/powerwall ” had anything to do with you or “ Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ”. “ Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ” at the URL bar returns only “ Address Not Found ”. A Google ( web ) search for “ Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ” returns our recent talk in Sci.Physics ( 6 hits ), nothing more. A Google Groups search for “ Physics-Cluster.UAF.EDU ” returns just one hit ( a post of yours ), i.e. this thread. A Yahoo search returned nothing .. same for the MSN search, but MSN suggested I try: “ Cluster Headaches ” and “ Cluster Bombs ”. You told me: “ You are an unsettling little man. Were you not such a freakshow at so many level's I would've visited you when I was in Seattle. ”. I enjoy Usenet, the web, WinVista Ultimate, Office 2007, VC++ 9 ( Visual Studio 2008 and VBA scripts ), CSS 3, JavaScript, FireFox 3, homeless kids, meth heads, petty criminals, welfare moms, banking, rollies, zippos, etc. ━ other than that, I'm your average Joe. > PD, from your post I believe you to be a bright guy, so.... SPACEMAN > was in my mind trolling to have someone explain to him how an atomic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't seem to remember the colorful phase 'nuclear resonance' or > 'emission spectra' even once being mentioned by anyone. Harry, G-forces are still in effect in nuclear resonance and emission spectra. Let me explain a bit in total laymens terms first. (sorry) :) Nuclear resonance is basically an imbalance of protons/neutrons. Take an object that has a non balance occuring while spinning and accelerate it, the spin (resonance) will actually change rate while the acceleration is occuring. The reason it will change rate is a silly Newton thing actually. F = ma the acceleration is the same, the mass is different. So the force needed to keep the imbalance the same as "at rest" is changing from acceleration causing the F to change differently for each "imbalanced" object. (proton/neutron whatever....) As for the 'emission spectrum' you again will have a mass moving to a further position away from the center, again causing an imbalance of the spin. Back to Newton knowing something that apparently Einstein did not. Nothing is immune to g-forces.. and when we find even one tiny thing that is.. We will be the alien ships. that visit other planets. (I don't really see that happening to soon) :) > Sorry guys, by posting an incorrect hypothesis, SPACEMAN managed to > make every one that responded to be clueless. Yes, They are. but truly Ignoring the newtonian effects associated with mass differences and acceleration changes is kinda making SR clueless mostly. :) > Listening James? Me? I alwasy listen, but... I'm just a dumb mekanik that thinks Newton is cool. And I have never seen a resonance, vibration, spin, or anything that is uneffected by g-force changes upon them. :) The clock malfunctioned. Just as a pendulum would have but in a much smaller form. Make a clock that has a mass spinning around in an unbalanced stated and count that spin rate.. Now accelerate the thing.. Guess what? It will malfunction too and Newton even knew that. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Harry, > G-forces are still in effect in nuclear resonance and emission [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The reason it will change rate is a silly Newton thing actually. > F = ma [snip remaider] James doesn't know that nuclei are held together by the strong nuclear force, some 10^38 times stronger than the force of gravity. Gravity plays no significant part in holding a nucleus together or dictating the internal motions of the nuclear components. No gravitational field outside of a black hole is going to have any effect on nuclear processes that could possibly make the slightest difference to an atomic clock (unless relative motions of clock components are caused, which they're not for inertial motion -- think freefall and microgravity for an orbiting body). >> Harry, >> G-forces are still in effect in nuclear resonance and emission [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > part in holding a nucleus together or dictating the > internal motions of the nuclear components. It does not matter what holds the imbalanced object to the spin point dillweed. When an imbalanced object is accelerated the resonance will change rate dingleberry because it will need to overcome the accelerated motion to keep the spin rate. If you had a clue about mechanics at all you might wake up sime day. LOL > No gravitational field outside of a black hole is going > to have any effect on nuclear processes that could possibly > make the slightest difference to an atomic clock (unless > relative motions of clock components are caused, which > they're not for inertial motion -- think freefall and > microgravity for an orbiting body). The damn clocks run slower in faster in simple gravity changes alone. Up higher where less gravity is present because it is further from the center of Gravity things will spin,vibrate, resonate, and move easier. Down lower when it is closer to the center of Gravity things will do all such things slower. Apparently you don't even know that stuff will spin or vibrate, or resonate easier in lesser gravity and harder in more gravity! Sheesh! You are a dillweed without a clue! And sadly you wish to remain that way. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> Harry, >>> G-forces are still in effect in nuclear resonance and emission [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you had a clue about mechanics at all you might wake > up sime day. This is good stuff. Now James is filling the nucleus with cogs and camshafts. One wonders how he is going to explain the simple proton scattering results, never mind the more recent nuclear shell studies and so forth. James just hasn't got a clue as to how mind-bogglingly fast motions within a nucleus are, and how an external acceleration of an atom of thousands of g's would be to the nucleus as a the breakneck speed of continental drift accelerations are to us. >> No gravitational field outside of a black hole is going >> to have any effect on nuclear processes that could possibly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The damn clocks run slower in faster in simple gravity > changes alone. Sure, with respect to an observer at a different gravitational potential than the clock. For observers co-located with the clock, there is no change in frequency. > Up higher where less gravity is present because it is further > from the center of Gravity things will spin,vibrate, resonate, > and move easier. Spaceman thinks that gravity is some sort of universal treacle. Too bad it doesn't jibe with the effects of relative velocity, which is seen to be independent of gravitational potential. The effects of time dilation are also seen right down here on Earth for particles moving at respectible fractions of c. > Down lower when it is closer to the center of Gravity > things will do all such things slower. > Apparently you don't even know that stuff will spin > or vibrate, or resonate easier in lesser gravity and harder > in more gravity! Only things that feel weight and rely on mechanical bearings need worry about the effect of gravity on working parts; Bearings suffer loads that depend upon the weight of the parts. Atomic clock parts (like freefalling cesium atoms) operate in the same evacuated, frictionless state whether on Earth or in space. > PD, from your post I believe you to be a bright guy, so.... SPACEMAN > was in my mind trolling to have someone explain to him how an atomic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't seem to remember the colorful phase 'nuclear resonance' or > 'emission spectra' even once being mentioned by anyone. James has been introduced to the rudiments of atomic clock function in posts past, and has been invited to follow up the web-accessible literature. He's had the hyperfine transition modus operandi explained, but refuses to think of its quantum nature and prefers to treat it as a pendulum-like oscillation relying on gravity, of all things. It's not for lack of trying on anyone's part to give him a hand understanding what are, really, fairly straightforward issues in physics. He simply refuses to accept any evidence that is contrary to his own ideas of the way things should be, pouncing on every thread that touches on relativity. If it's a slow day he'll start his own threads with some blatantly incorrect premis and intimations of grand brainwashing conspiracies on the part of Physicists everywhere. >> PD, from your post I believe you to be a bright guy, so.... SPACEMAN >> was in my mind trolling to have someone explain to him how an atomic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > treat it as a pendulum-like oscillation relying on > gravity, of all things. Poor Greg is so brainwashed he can not grasp the simple mechanics of a "nuclear resonance" problem with g-forces even though it has been explained to him before. LOL >>> PD, from your post I believe you to be a bright guy, so.... SPACEMAN >>> was in my mind trolling to have someone explain to him how an atomic [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mechanics of a "nuclear resonance" problem with g-forces > even though it has been explained to him before. Really? By you? Gee, I must have missed that partiucular gem. Please do give me an article reference! I'm keen for a laugh. >> Why, Spaceman, that's absolutely correct! You've figured out >> something. A circular orbit can have constant *speed* but never [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (Including long ago when I told you that speed and velocity are the > same things.) Which, of course, they are not. In sci.physics, Greg Neill <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:42:04 -0400 <487b8910$0$26124$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>: >>> Touchi. These people are not the only ones. It was NOT a small >>> mistake. Your whole posting was devoted to an erroneous idea. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Atoms in free-fall experience no weight, no acceleration > effects, just as a person in free-fall has no weight. Pedant point: Atoms in free-fall will experience tidal effects, as they are falling through a curved space; these effects are extremely minute and presumably immesurable. > Atomic clocks in orbit have two relativistic effects that > must be adjusted for. One is due to gravitational potential > and the other due to velocity. The two effects go in opposite > directions, which means a strictly g-force related effect is > ruled out empirically. Indeed. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: No such file or directory ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > In sci.physics, Greg Neill > <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> >> Atoms in free-fall experience no weight, no acceleration >> effects, just as a person in free-fall has no weight. > > Pedant point: Atoms in free-fall will experience tidal > effects, as they are falling through a curved space; these > effects are extremely minute and presumably immesurable. Sure. A cesium atom is about 520 picometers across. Gravitational acceleration is G*M/r^2, where M is the mass of the Earth and r the distance of the atom from the center of the Earth. Letting u = G*M as usual, and taking the case for a particle in freefall at near the surface of the Earth, A = u/r^2 Acceleration due to gravity A'= -2*u/r^3 Differentiated u = 3.986 x 10^5 km^3/sec^2 Earth's gravitational parameter r = 6378 km Earth radius d = 520 pm Cesium atom diameter ATidal = 2 * u/r^3 * d = 1.6 x 10^-15 m/s^2 So a cesium atom will experience a 'stretching' acceleration across its width, in line with the Earth's center, of less than 2 femtometers per second squared. For the radial distance from the nucleus to the outermost electron orbit it'll be half that, about 8.0 x 10^-16 m/s^2. Compare this to the acceleration due to electric potential holding the outmost electrons to the nucleus. The nucleus contains 55 protons, so Qe = 1.602 x 10^-19 Coul Charge on electron me = 9.109 x 10^-31 kg Mass of electron Qn = 55*Qe Charge on nucleus k = 8.987 x 10^9 N*m^2/Coul^2 Coulomb's law constant Anuc = k*Qe*Qn*/r^2/me = 2.1 x 10^23 m/sec^2 39 orders of magnitude difference. I'd say that's pretty much insignificant! >> Atomic clocks in orbit have two relativistic effects that >> must be adjusted for. One is due to gravitational potential [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Indeed. > You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity [snip crap] 1) Radioactive half-life as clock. 2) Idiot. > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn? http://groups.google.com/groups?q=spaceshit&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/message.html 1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Spaceshit? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html 2) Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped): (+1)(+1) = +1 (-1)(+1) = ? (+1)(-1) = ? (-1)(-1) = ? <http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/> clocks in orbit - by an undergrad <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html> Hafele-Keating Experiment for Spaceshit http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html Clock for Spaceshit <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf> Clocks for Spaceshit http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504017 Clocks for Spaceshit. http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html The distorted cube http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/ Spaceshit emulator http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html Chew on it http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity [snip >> crap] > > 1) Radioactive half-life as clock. atomic rate being counted + g-force change = dilation Yup Al, it is a clock. sorry you don't get it. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 13, 11:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity > to get it's most accurate reading. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Jim, do you have any idea how an atomic clock function, and how? Trust me in telling you that it has nothing to do with gravity. I believe that in this case you were simply trolling for someone to spoon feed you with an explanation of how an atomic clock operates, rather the researching it on your own. Am I close to being correct? Harry C. > On Jul 13, 11:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Jim, do you have any idea how an atomic clock function, and how? > Trust me in telling you that it has nothing to do with gravity. Actually Harry, the most accurate one does and it is actually in the description of how it works on the NIST website. and as anyone knows, even if you made one that did not have to "fall" after the fountain "squirts" it out. You would still have an atom that is not immune to gravitational changes. (any g-force changes) the atom is no more immune that a ton of atoms. That is why both will fall at the same rate if ignoring any other friction effect. > I believe that in this case you were simply trolling for someone to > spoon feed you with an explanation of how an atomic clock operates, > rather the researching it on your own. > > Am I close to being correct? No you are not, and it looks like you did not even read the site link I posted. http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm right above the picture. and even if other atomic clocks do not work that way. the atom is not immune to gravity. If it is. we all have a much bigger problem to worry about because... we are made of atoms and we should also be immune if such were true at all. No trolling Harry, The facts about atoms and clock malfunctions only. I am sorry you think that I am trolling at all. I am also sorry you are standing up for a theory that is equal to the flat world theory of yesteryear but this time it is about "time changing rate" and it is a total ignorance of a clock malfunction that has occured to clocks ever since they were invented. Only in the atomic clock, the effect is much smaller. If I have a cup of cesium atoms in my car and slam on the brakes, it will spill just as a pendulum would swing towards the front as I do the same. The cesium atom is not immune to G-forces. Fact = The clock malfunctioned. Proof of fact = different times on clocks faces when they are brought back together. Secondary proof, the clock that had the most g-force changes has the worst time keeping ability. Third proof - Relatively, the clock that is slowing would see the other clock as slowing instead of itself. Why only one clock if both were relative to each other the entire time? Did the Earth move and the traveling clock stay still? NO!~ If SR was truly correct about "time slowing", both would have such effects and both would have slower times according to each other. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 14, 9:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > hhc...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jul 13, 11:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > That is why both will fall at the same rate if ignoring any other > friction effect. James, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear resonance of a cesium atom. Go back and re-read that link. This particular atomic clock impementatin employs gravity to maniupulate the location of the cesium atom, which has nothing to do with the basic concept used in all atomic clocks. The key passage in that link is this: "Eventually, a microwave frequency is found that alters the states of most of the cesium atoms and maximizes their fluorescence. This frequency is the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz), or the frequency used to define the second." Gravity plays absolutely no role at all in determining the natural resonant frequency of the cesium atom, which is why cesium resonance atomic clocks keep the same time in essentially gravity free space and they do when exposed to earths gravity. This is why they are used. NIST's current standard mechanically employs gravity to function, because it is an earthbound piece of appratus and it is convenient to employ gravity as part of it's design. The resonant frequency of the cesium atom is totally independent of gravitational influences. This link will give you a much better explanation of how an atomic clock functions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock > > I believe that in this case you were simply trolling for someone to > > spoon feed you with an explanation of how an atomic clock operates, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No you are not, and it looks like you did not even read the site link > I posted. Actually James, I did read that site, and actually understood it. It primarily desicribes NIST's implementation of their current time base. You're confusing it unique design (which does apply gravity) and missing entirely the concept of cesum nuclear resonance that it is designed to support and measure. No offense intended, and I hope none will be taken, but in my mind this is like confusing the mechanism of the constant temperature oven with the resonance of the quartz crystal contained in it. OK, apples and oranges, since the resonance of a quartz crystal is temperature dependent, but the resonant frequency of a cesium atom is both temperature, gravity, and magnetic field independent. (The same type of quartz crystal is employed in your computer, your watch, an and all broadcasting stations to determine their frequency of operation. The only difference is that those used in broadcasting transmitter are much more precise and stable, and all are enclosed in a thermostatically controlled, constant temperature oven. The priniciples of operation of that oven are interesting, but have absolutely nothing to do with the natural resonant frequency of the quartz crystal, except to shielf it from temperature variations.) . > and even if other atomic clocks do not work that way. > the atom is not immune to gravity. It certainly is immune to gravity. If you believe otherwise, point me to any experiment that demonstrates otherwise. > If it is. we all have a much bigger problem to worry about > because... we are made of atoms and we should also be immune > if such were true at all. James, now you are arm waving without any scientific basis. > No trolling Harry, > The facts about atoms and clock malfunctions only. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to clocks ever since they were invented. > Only in the atomic clock, the effect is much smaller. No James, the though did occur to me that your posts might be a troll, but on the other hand they might be your method to have others explain to you things that you find difficult to comprehend or research for yourself. > If I have a cup of cesium atoms in my car and slam > on the brakes, it will spill just as a pendulum would swing > towards the front as I do the same. > The cesium atom is not immune to G-forces. Actually, the resonant frequency of the cesium atom, or any atom, is gravity independent. James, your have this problem with relativity concepts, I don't and for a good number of years helped to design machines that would not operate except for the reality of special relativity. I have a much larger problem with quantum mechanics than you do with relativity, I know from workplace experience that SR works, and would have had trouble accepting it were it not for that experience. While I am quite comfortable with statistical mechanics, because it is based on fundamentally classic physics, for me even as a physicist, quantum mechanics gives me heartburn. It too is based on statistical theories and can predict that there is a finite possibility that and electron can penetrate a potential barrier, which is equivalent to say that a ball at rest will suddenly roll uphill. Evidence suggests that the conclusions of quantum theory are correct, but QM still has problems making accurate predictions of future outcomes expressed in numbers. This is not to say that QM is incorrect, but difficult to imagine using our current visualization of the model. Now here is where a classical physicist who is also an engineer enters the world of the 'kooks'. Physics looks at the world of nature by viewing it as a mathematical abstraction rendered in 3-dimensions, 4- dimensions if you include time in the picture. This 4-D model has served us well, but when we push the limits, such as is done with SR and QM, we are intellectually incapable of understanding all of the ramifications. (Sorry to use such big words, but I know of no other way to express my thoughts.) Cutting to the chase, suppose that the human mind is conly capable of dealing or visualizing in 4-dimensions, but it turns out there are 5 or 6-dimensions. I don't know about others, but personaly I get a headaches even trying to comprehend such a model of reality, but suspect that it may exist. Harry C. > James, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear resonance > of a cesium atom. Harry, it has to. Resonance has a frequency, and anything the resonates will resonate "faster" in lesser g-forces and slower in higher g-forces. That is the simple reason for the clocks to increase rate when on top of a mountain compared to the bottom of the mountian. > Go back and re-read that link. This particular atomic clock > impementatin employs gravity to maniupulate the location of the cesium [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > frequency is the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom > (9,192,631,770 Hz), or the frequency used to define the second." "Natural" resonance changes with gravitational potential changes. It also changes when subject to accelerations. > Gravity plays absolutely no role at all in determining the natural > resonant frequency of the cesium atom, which is why cesium resonance [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > dependent, but the resonant frequency of a cesium atom is both > temperature, gravity, and magnetic field independent. Nothing is "gravity independant" Harry. and if you add in the case of the metallic element cesium, it is actually NMR that is occuring and is also dependant on magnetic fields also. MRI's would not work right if not such was true about the magnetic independance. :) > (The same type > of quartz crystal is employed in your computer, your watch, an and all [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It certainly is immune to gravity. If you believe otherwise, point me > to any experiment that demonstrates otherwise. Every single relativity experiment is showing it changes rate in different g-potentials Harry. clock on top of the mountain, clock on bottom. If it did not "change rate" physically we would not be talking about it at all. :) >> If it is. we all have a much bigger problem to worry about >> because... we are made of atoms and we should also be immune >> if such were true at all. > > James, now you are arm waving without any scientific basis. No, Harry. I am trying to give physical causes to a physical problem with the clock, instead of a mathematical cause alone. :) >> No trolling Harry, >> The facts about atoms and clock malfunctions only. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to you things that you find difficult to comprehend or research for > yourself. No trolling, but yes sometimes dropping bait for different fishes. I do not crosspost, I do not just give the typicle you are wrong. posts (although sometimes I might by accident because I am laughing too much to type) :) >> If I have a cup of cesium atoms in my car and slam >> on the brakes, it will spill just as a pendulum would swing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, the resonant frequency of the cesium atom, or any atom, is > gravity independent. Harry, If it were truly gravity independant there would be no reason at all for the clock to run faster at a higher altitude. > James, your have this problem with relativity concepts, I don't and > for a good number of years helped to design machines that would not [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > others, but personaly I get a headaches even trying to comprehend such > a model of reality, but suspect that it may exist. I only ask you to think about such but remove your Read only memory first to do such. I know you know a lot, but don't take this as an insult please. The flatworlders knew a lot also. Please explain why a clock at different altitudes could tick at a different rate if gravity is not the "Cause" of the variation in tick rate. And please don't use the clocks change rate because "time changes rate" cause, because that is like saying the car moves forward because the car is moving forward. It lacks physical cause completely and is simply a bad circular logic cause instead of a physical one. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 15, 12:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > hhc...@yahoo.com wrote: > > James, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear resonance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will resonate "faster" in lesser g-forces and slower > in higher g-forces. Ask youself the question, why do you belive this? > That is the simple reason for the clocks to increase > rate when on top of a mountain compared to > the bottom of the mountian. Pendulum clocks yes, but for atomic clocks no. This is one of the reasons that make them so valuable. > > Go back and re-read that link. This particular atomic clock > > impementatin employs gravity to maniupulate the location of the cesium [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Natural" resonance changes with gravitational potential changes. > It also changes when subject to accelerations. Sorry James, atomic resonance does not. You're mixing apples and oranges. > > Gravity plays absolutely no role at all in determining the natural > > resonant frequency of the cesium atom, which is why cesium resonance [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock > Nothing is "gravity independant" Harry. Wrong, consider the half-life of a naturally radio active element as a simply example. Nothing in heaven or on earth modifies it. > and if you add in the case of the metallic element cesium, it is actually > NMR that is occuring and is also dependant on magnetic fields also. > MRI's would not work right if not such was true about the magnetic > independance. Again James, I'm pretty familiar with MRIs, and gravity is not a factor. The magnetic field also has no function except to establish the axis of spin. > >> and even if other atomic clocks do not work that way. > >> the atom is not immune to gravity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Every single relativity experiment is showing it > changes rate in different g-potentials Harry. Name a specif experiment where this is demonstrated. I've spent 50 years in physics and applied physics, own a rather extensive library, and have never even heard of such an experiment. Perhaps someone else has, in which case the simple answer would be to post a citation where such an event was experimentally observed. > I am trying to give physical causes to a physical problem with > the clock, instead of a mathematical cause alone. James, no insult intended, but most of the kooks on this newsgroup based their ideas on things that they my have read is some coffee table book written by a cosmologist pretender like Hawking. The fact is, the only reason why he is the darling of the media is because he sits in a wheelchair and speaks funny. The media likes that, and praises him as some sort of an expert on physics. Guess what, I cannot cite even one physics text that even references this guy, or or anyone that can cite even one of his 'magnificent' contributions to physics. Not one! This is the problem. Lay readers want to understand advanced theory, without bothering to spend a few years learning the basic stuff, which begins with Physics 101. Physics is one of those peculiar subject that you cannot simply learn that way. You have to master the basis Physics 101 material in order to comprehend the more advanced material. In simplistic terms, you have to learn to walk before you learn to run. This is what often frustratrates wanna-be physicists. It is totally impossible to grasp relativity theory without first understanding in depth the principles of Newtonian Mechanics. You have to understand Statistical Mechanics in order to grasp even the introductory concepts of Quantum Mechanics. In short, you cannot even understand Physics 501 until you've mastered Physics 101, Physics 302, and every step up the ladder. This is what frustrates the wanna be physicists when they begin to realize that the mastery of Physics 101 requires over a year, often two years of study and working all of the problem sets. Naturally, during this time you acquire some skills in mathematics, since mathematics is the language of physics. That said, it takes usually about 4 years for most people to obtain a compehensive knowlege of basic physics. At that point, they are likely prepared to address graduate school subject like relativity theory and other advanced material. This is precisely the problem here. Not a putdown, but I suspect that your comprehension problem is based on the fact that no one has ever bothered to teach you basic physics. Please don't expect to acquire this on the Internet. Since you live in New England, take a trip to the MIT Coop and buy two books. First, a book on introductory calculus, and second a used copy of University Physics (Sears and Zemansky) and then spend the next year or two reading, and working the problem sets contained in every chapter. Also, if you have enough pocket change, purchas a used copy of the book that MIT is currently using in a course called 'Classical Mechanics' or 'Theoretical Mechanics' since you are interest in clocks. Finally, an intrductery text on 'Atomic Physics' will become interesting to you as your knowledge increases. James. just to put my comment in a context that we both understand, would you trust a front end alignment or a total engine rebuild to a newby that has problems doing a brake job? Harry C. > On Jul 15, 12:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ask youself the question, why do you belive this? Two reasons 1: Because it is a know fact about the gravitational differences from a radius change in U = -GMm/r 2: All of Newtons laws. Both reasons are true in vacuum also. As we know "the laws of physics do not change because of vacuum" Take any object that is unbalanced and spin it at the bottom of a mountain in vacuum. (measure the frequency and the time the frequency will change down to 0. Take the same object and spin it with the same force at the top of the mountain. (measure that frequency) The top of the Mountain will have a lesser Gravitational potential and the frequency rate will stay higher for a longer period of time. >> That is the simple reason for the clocks to increase >> rate when on top of a mountain compared to >> the bottom of the mountian. > > Pendulum clocks yes, but for atomic clocks no. This is one of the > reasons that make them so valuable. Actually, they are proving that they do change rate. Why would you ignore that proof Harry? The clocks tick faster (even atomic clocks) in a lesser Gravitational potential. I would never say the equations are not true, only their explanation lacks physical cause. And I am trying to find the physical cause instead of the silly circular cause of time changing rate. >>> Go back and re-read that link. This particular atomic clock >>> impementatin employs gravity to maniupulate the location of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sorry James, atomic resonance does not. You're mixing apples and > oranges. Harry, is it a resonance at all? If it is, it is not immune to gravity. It simple can not be since it would also be immune to *U = -GMm/r* and F = mg >> Nothing is "gravity independant" Harry. > > Wrong, consider the half-life of a naturally radio active element as a > simply example. Nothing in heaven or on earth modifies it. So if I bombard a naturally radio active with electrons and anti-neutrinos it will not change at all? I don't think so. I think it will either increase the half life or decrease it. I wish I had equipment to try such. :) >> Every single relativity experiment is showing it >> changes rate in different g-potentials Harry. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > has, in which case the simple answer would be to post a citation > where such an event was experimentally observed. Harry, the clocks change rate. They do not change rate "relatively" or the traveling clock would say the "at rest" clock should have changed, but it did not. Each and every clock that comes back with a different time on it's face, is showing the decay rate can not truly be constant. >> I am trying to give physical causes to a physical problem with >> the clock, instead of a mathematical cause alone. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > would you trust a front end alignment or a total engine rebuild to a > newby that has problems doing a brake job? I would not Harry, unless I taught him before such. But let me ask you this Harry, Would you trust a clock that is dilated to travel through space at high speeds where the planets and stars do not care about your clock malfunction and do not slowdown their motion because your clock has slowed down? Let me say this, The clocks "if operating correctly in their frame of reference should still show the same times.. and if not there is only one "physical reason". and it is not time changing rate. The only reason left is the decay rate changed physically from some force acting upon it. Do you truly think decay rates are completely immune to all 3 of Newtons physical Laws of force? I can't think that. It is just too crazy. And if the clocks show different rates and all to do with g-force changes.. it comes down to the only physical cause left is... the clock malfunctioned from a force that acted upon it. I am sorry if you don't agree, but like I say all the time. You need to think out of the "relativity" box to find out what is "physically" occuring to the frequency change that is factual. If the frequency change was not "factual" there would be no time dilation occuring at all. The only argument against the clock malfunction is "the clocks are functioning properly in thier frame of reference" so many ticks = a second always. but.. pendulum clocks do that too They only show so many ticks per swing in thier frame of reference. They technically did not malfunction either if you use the "relativity" excuse about the clocks function in thier respective frames. But.. we know the pendulum clocks screwed up. Why can't decay rate be changed by a physical force that would come from at least 1 of Newtons laws? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.