Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never wan |
 |
|
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
Uncle Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 13, 10:11 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
you are sure picking each crank one by one
wait until you get the PRETENDERS: Shitbert,Juanshito and Peter Brown-
nose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 1:30 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 10:11 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
you are sure picking each crank one by one
wait until you get the PRETENDERS: Shitbert,Juanshito and Peter Brown-nose-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Are there any non-cranks in the group, present company excepted, of
course?
You're right. I should get a life! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Sue...
| Quote: |
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
|
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms are
moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational field,
and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time dilation.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
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
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms are
moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational field,
and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time dilation.
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path are
a difference in g-forces.
|
I wasn't talking about a curved path, Spaceman. I was referring to
*straight* line motion, both under the *identical* terrestrial
gravitational field.
| Quote: |
the faster the motion in the curved path, the larger change in g-force.
Again, PD thinks the atom is immune to g-forces and for some
silly reason he thinks an orbit is an inertial path, even though
it has a 90 degree -g-force and a forward motion keeping it in orbit.
Someday you might get it PD, but you need to actually think about it
instead of just worship the wrong thoughts about it.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:16 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
A diversion about the fact that it is still subject to gravitational effects
the same as any other mass in motion being counted such as a pendulum?
Yes..
It is a nice diversion.
:)
Do you think a tiny atom cluster falls differently than a billion atoms
in gravity?
Do you think the cesium atom is immune to gravity?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to fall
freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall cancels
the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and let them
fall.
Imagine that you are trapped in an elevator on the top of the Empire
State Building. You reach for your cellphone to call for help. It
slips from your grasp and lo! it falls to the floor. That reassures
you that you are still on planet earth and gravity has not been
cancelled for the day.
But suppose the cable breaks and you start falling freely towards the
ground. Your cellphone now does not fall to the floor of the
elevator. If you were a nerdy physicist, you might assume that
gravity has been cancelled. There is no way for you to be sure that
you are falling. In effect, in the interval before you crash to the
ground, it is as if gravity has actually been cancelled.
That is how the cesium atoms behave as they exchange photons with the
lasers. Whee! No gravity! for a whole second. This sharpens the
absorption/emission spectra of the cesium atoms and permits a sharper
measurement of their frequencies -- to one part in a million billion.
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:36 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
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
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms
are moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational
field, and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time
dilation.
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path
are a difference in g-forces.
I wasn't talking about a curved path, Spaceman. I was referring to
*straight* line motion, both under the *identical* terrestrial
gravitational field.
Now PD proves he does not understand that a truly straight line motion can
not stay in the same "terrestrial gravitational field".
A truly straight path would have to cross into higher or lower gravitational
potentials.
Sheesh
|
Nice try, Spaceman!
But the time dilation for *different* speeds in the same channel,
through the *identical* gravitational profile, follows the
expectations of SR. That is, you get what SR predicts for speeds of
0.5c, 0.8c, 0.9c, and 0.99c, even though they are in in the very same
beampipe through the same variation in gravitational field.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:59 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:36 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:50 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
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
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms
are moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational
field, and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time
dilation.
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path
are a difference in g-forces.
I wasn't talking about a curved path, Spaceman. I was referring to
*straight* line motion, both under the *identical* terrestrial
gravitational field.
Now PD proves he does not understand that a truly straight line
motion can not stay in the same "terrestrial gravitational field".
A truly straight path would have to cross into higher or lower
gravitational potentials.
Sheesh
Nice try, Spaceman!
But the time dilation for *different* speeds in the same channel,
through the *identical* gravitational profile, follows the
expectations of SR. That is, you get what SR predicts for speeds of
0.5c, 0.8c, 0.9c, and 0.99c, even though they are in in the very same
beampipe through the same variation in gravitational field.
What "beampipe" are you talking about PD?
Any truly straight line can not be in the same gravitational force
from beginning to end.
|
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and goes
to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles going
through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get *different* time
dilations, even though they are going through the *same* variation in
the gravitational field. Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the cause
of the effect.
| Quote: |
and...
Why don't you get that I am not saying the predictions are wrong
at all. I am merely saying that the actual changes that the clocks
are showing are not caused by this stupid ass spacetime cause you
worship like an Easter bunny.
|
Then you'll have to explain why traveling through the SAME beampipe,
through the SAME variation in gravitational field, can produce
DIFFERENT time dilations.
This kind of thinking, Spaceman, is what draws you essential nonstop
ridicule. You nonetheless lap it up like a thirsty man in front of a
puddle.
| Quote: |
The actual cause is the same cause that makes pendulum clocks
goof up too. A g-force change.
Sheesh
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 1:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to fall
freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall cancels
the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and let them
fall.
If it truly "cancelled gravity", it would not be falling at all.
Why don't you get that?
When it falls in freefall is accelerating.
acceleration is a g-force event.
Or do you think when you fall, you do not accelerate at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
Yes, speaking loosely, acceleration is a g-force event. So is being
in a gravitational field. But in this case these two cancel each
other. That is the point.
Have you ever seen video of astronaut training in which they are in an
airplane that is carefully following a parabolic arc that imitates the
path of a projectile falling freely? The guys are floating around in
the plane as it there is no gravity. Note the "as if." Yes, there is
still gravity at work, but there is also the acceleration at work.
And they cancel each other.
That's my last word. The Samuel Johnson quote still applies: "I have
given you an argument, sir, but I cannot give you an understanding."
Uncle Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 12:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and goes
to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles going
through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get *different* time
dilations, even though they are going through the *same* variation in
the gravitational field.
The variation in the differential changes would of course make
different changes in any clock doing such speeds.
Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the cause
of the effect.
Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD.
|
Yes, but you don't think that different speeds are what's responsible.
You think g-forces are responsible for time dilation.
Here you have different particles with different speeds but the *same*
variation in g-forces, and they have *different* time dilations. The g-
forces, which you say are the cause of time dilation, cannot possibly
be the cause, because you have *different* effects for the *same*
claimed cause.
Please put the beer down and try to think coherently.
| Quote: |
Then you'll have to explain why traveling through the SAME beampipe,
through the SAME variation in gravitational field, can produce
DIFFERENT time dilations.
Different speeds are not the "same variation change"
And even relativity gets that right most of the time.
Usually refered to as "relative" mass.
|
Are you *sure* that's what it's called? Try again.
| Quote: |
A 1 kg mass moving at 20 meters per second has a different
relative mass than a 1 kg mass moving at any different speed
than 20 meters per second.
|
Yes, that's right.
| Quote: |
Therefore, you do not have the "same" relative mass at all
when you have different speeds at all.
|
Right, but you don't think relativistic mass (an SR prediction) is
what's responsible. You think g-forces are. You are dismissing what SR
says is the reason and you say it is malfunctioning due to g-forces
and differences in acceleration. Now you don't seem to be so sure
about g-forces and are starting to bring in stuff from special
relativity, like "relative mass".
| Quote: |
C,mon PD, that is relativity 101.
(some of the actually correct stuff in relativity)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 1:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to
fall freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall
cancels the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and
let them fall.
If it truly "cancelled gravity", it would not be falling at all.
Why don't you get that?
When it falls in freefall is accelerating.
acceleration is a g-force event.
Or do you think when you fall, you do not accelerate at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Yes, speaking loosely, acceleration is a g-force event. So is being
in a gravitational field. But in this case these two cancel each
other. That is the point.
Have you ever seen video of astronaut training in which they are in an
airplane that is carefully following a parabolic arc that imitates the
path of a projectile falling freely? The guys are floating around in
the plane as it there is no gravity. Note the "as if." Yes, there is
still gravity at work, but there is also the acceleration at work.
And they cancel each other.
So you admit the "atom" in freefall, will not fall inside the clock
that is also in freefall.
Maybe it is you that should think about that.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
You have to specify the frame of reference. If the atom is in
freefall and the clock is in freefall, then the atom will not fall
with respect to the clock. Notice the "with respect to the clock"
phrase; the clock defines a frame of reference.
Earth also establishes a frame of reference; the atom still falls
with respect to the earth.
But the point is that according to Einstein, both the gravity of the
earth and the acceleration of the atoms have effects of the rate of
clocks. In the case of free fall, they happen to have equal and
opposite effects on the rate of clocks.
B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
|
A diversion about the fact that it is still subject to gravitational effects
the same as any other mass in motion being counted such as a pendulum?
Yes..
It is a nice diversion.
:)
Do you think a tiny atom cluster falls differently than a billion atoms
in gravity?
Do you think the cesium atom is immune to gravity?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Dono wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 10:11 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
you are sure picking each crank one by one
wait until you get the PRETENDERS: Shitbert,Juanshito and Peter Brown-
nose
|
Dear Dono,
Do you also think a cesium atom is immune
to gravitational effects? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
