On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 06:57:30 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/19/22 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > There is no such thing as spacetime.
> Of course not! Spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the world.
> Specifically, it models the spatial-temporal relationships observed in
> the world.

In the world of your moronic gedankens, of course; in the real
world time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
with the precision of an acceptable error. Anyone can test it
with GPS or TAI.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> > picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> > have exhibited the same size effect.
> Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.

Pulsars are not reliable clocks because the phase of the
clock signals depends on where you are, and the clock
frequency depends on how you are moving.

So far as pendulum clocks are concerned, ever seen a
person carry a pendulum watch on their wrist? In Saturday
morning cartoons, I've seen animated toons with sundials
on their wrists, but pendulum clocks? Never!

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 08:30:19 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> > > picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> > > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> > > have exhibited the same size effect.
> > Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> > straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.
> Pulsars are not reliable clocks because

Because they don't do what The Shit and its cultists
are expecting.

> So far as pendulum clocks are concerned, ever seen a
> person carry a pendulum watch on their wrist? In Saturday
> morning cartoons, I've seen animated toons with sundials
> on their wrists, but pendulum clocks? Never!

And have you ever seen your "proper" and "superprecise"
clocks on a GPS satellite, where precision of the measurements
is for real instead for gedankens?

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> > > picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> > > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> > > have exhibited the same size effect.
> > Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> > straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.
>
> Pulsars are not reliable clocks because the phase of the
> clock signals depends on where you are, and the clock
> frequency depends on how you are moving.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong.
These effects are well understood and can be easily corrected for.

Millisecond pulsars, considered as clocks, are among the best there are.
Sure, they spin down, but that spindown is well understood
and can be corrected for.
Sure, they may have star quakes, which makes their rate jump,
but this is easily corrected for when you time a number of them.
They don't all jump at the same instant.

I have seen expert opinion to the effect
that it will take several decades of timing and averaging
to be sure that pulsars and atomic clocks do keep the same time,

Jan

--

> So far as pendulum clocks are concerned, ever seen a
> person carry a pendulum watch on their wrist? In Saturday
> morning cartoons, I've seen animated toons with sundials
> on their wrists, but pendulum clocks? Never!

But you can keep direction with one,
<https://tintin.fandom.com/fr/wiki/Tryphon_Tournesol>

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 11:22:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> > > > picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> > > > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> > > > have exhibited the same size effect.
> > > Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> > > straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.
> >
> > Pulsars are not reliable clocks because the phase of the
> > clock signals depends on where you are, and the clock
> > frequency depends on how you are moving.
> Sorry, but this is completely wrong.
> These effects are well understood and can be easily corrected for.

You shouldn't spread such a heresy, poor halfbrain;
pulsar based time won't dilate, you see.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 11:22:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com:
> > > > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms,
> > > > we only > picked these two, and these two picked at random just
> > > > HAPPENED to exhibit > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked
> > > > any other pair, they would not > have exhibited the same size
> > > > effect. Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic
> > > > fartings straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.
> > >
> > > Pulsars are not reliable clocks because the phase of the
> > > clock signals depends on where you are, and the clock
> > > frequency depends on how you are moving.
> > Sorry, but this is completely wrong.
> > These effects are well understood and can be easily corrected for.
>
> You shouldn't spread such a heresy, poor halfbrain;
> pulsar based time won't dilate, you see.

Complete nonsense, it Lorentz-transforms just like everything else.
When timing the pulses it is necessary
to correct for the variable Doppler shift
caused by the rotation of the Earth on axis
and by its orbiting of the sun.
Likewise, corrections are needed at the other side
if the pulsar orbits something,

Jan

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 12:05:40 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 11:22:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms,
> > > > > we only > picked these two, and these two picked at random just
> > > > > HAPPENED to exhibit > the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked
> > > > > any other pair, they would not > have exhibited the same size
> > > > > effect. Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic
> > > > > fartings straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.
> > > >
> > > > Pulsars are not reliable clocks because the phase of the
> > > > clock signals depends on where you are, and the clock
> > > > frequency depends on how you are moving.
> > > Sorry, but this is completely wrong.
> > > These effects are well understood and can be easily corrected for.
> >
> > You shouldn't spread such a heresy, poor halfbrain;
> > pulsar based time won't dilate, you see.
> Complete nonsense, it Lorentz-transforms just like everything else.

Are pulsar clocks local clocks?

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>
> >> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >> turn out right.
> >>
> >> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>
> >> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >
> > Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> > at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> > seconds at different rates.
> Different path through spacetime.
>
> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> book on Usenet.

Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second will contain a different interval of absolute time.
> >>
> >> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>
> >> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>
> >> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >> either.)
> >>
> >> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>
>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>> turn out right.
>>>>
>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>
>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>
>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>> seconds at different rates.
>> Different path through spacetime.
>>
>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
>> book on Usenet.
>
> Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
> clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
> will contain a different interval of absolute time.

You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
something you never studied.

>>>>
>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>>>
>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>>>> either.)
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>
> >> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >> turn out right.
> >>
> >> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>
> >> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >
> > Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> > at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> > seconds at different rates.
> Different path through spacetime.

No not different path but rather different state of absolute motion.
>
> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> book on Usenet.
> >>
> >> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>
> >> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>
> >> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >> either.)
> >>
> >> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >>>> turn out right.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> >>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> >>> seconds at different rates.
> >> Different path through spacetime.
> >>
> >> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> >> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> >> book on Usenet. ...
> >
> > Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
> > clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
> > will contain a different interval of absolute time.
> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
> something you never studied.

You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >>>> either.)
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>
>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>> turn out right.
>>>>
>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>
>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>
>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>> seconds at different rates.
>> Different path through spacetime.
>
> No not different path but rather different state of absolute motion.

Nobody cares about your explanations.
Nobody.

>>
>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
>> book on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>>>
>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>>>> either.)
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>>>> turn out right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>>>> seconds at different rates.
>>>> Different path through spacetime.
>>>>
>>>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
>>>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
>>>> book on Usenet. ...
>>>
>>> Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
>>> clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
>>> will contain a different interval of absolute time.
>> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
>> something you never studied.
>
> You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.

And you are a chemical engineer.
And you’ve never studied ANY physics.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>>>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>>>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>>>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>>>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>>>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>>>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>>>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>>>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>>>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>>>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>>>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>>>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>>>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>>>>>> either.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>>>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>>>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>>>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>>>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:49:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >>>>>> turn out right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> >>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> >>>>> seconds at different rates.
>
> >>>> Different path through spacetime.
> >>>
> >>> There is no such thing as spacetime.
> Your assertion that there is no such thing as spacetime is of no value.
> >> Yes, there is. You just don’t know anything about it.
> NOBODY knows anything about it since you just made it up!

Moron, I didn't just make it up. My book been out since 2016. Gee you are so stupid.
> >>
> >> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
> >> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
> >> the words mean?
> >>
> > Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow

A does not see B running slow. He predict that B is running slow or running fast.
> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
B does not see A running slow. He predict that A is running slow or running fast.

> mythical absolute time? You can't. That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
> a complete, total, absolute failure.

Moron, the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They achieve this before the launch by offsetting (adding) the GPS clock second to have 4.1617 cycles of Cs 133 transitions. This makes the GPS at its location runs at the same rate in terms of absolute time.

> > However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time.
> So with my case of relative motion of A and B, how much absolute time is
> 1 second of A's clock? 1 second of B's clock? You can't make it work.

Gee you are so fucing stupid. A clock second of a clock will contain a specific interval of absolute time depending on the absolute motion of the clock.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:11:19 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.

This happens because drooling imbeciles like you bought what you pagan god wrote in 1905:

TIME IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS TO ME.

Fucking assholes, 117 years of pseudo-science inbreeding. For what?

For nothing, and it's getting worse in your fucking community of relativistic lemmings.

Go all you to the cliff right now. Real world will be ever grateful.

But before jumping, please put down your femtosecond clocks, so a memorial can be built.

While falling, think how many femtoseconds do you think that have left before......

Don't forget to discount the corrections due to the impact of gravity on optical clocks with 18 digits, asshole.

On 4/20/2022 5:55 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:49:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
>>>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
>>>> the words mean?
>>>>
>>> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.

>> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
>
> A does not see B running slow. He predict that B is running slow or running fast.

A can predict whatever he wants, it's irrelevant. However, A will see
(measure) B's clock as running slow.

>> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your

> B does not see A running slow. He predict that A is running slow or running fast.

B can predict whatever he wants. But B does measure A's clock as
running slow.
>
>> how do you explain that with your mythical absolute time? You can't.

And you didn't even try.

>> That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
>> a complete, total, absolute failure.
>
> Moron, the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.

No, it does not, Stupid Ken. It's right there in the specs, the offset
is done because of general relativity. No mention of mythical "absolute
time".

> They achieve this before the launch by offsetting (adding) the GPS clock second to have 4.1617 cycles of Cs 133 transitions.

Because of general relativity.

> This makes the GPS at its location runs at the same rate in terms of absolute time.

No, Stupid Ken. There is no mention of absolute time anywhere in the GPS
specs, only general relativity. This has been explained to you many
times, but you are just too senile to understand.
>
>>> However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time.

>> So with my case of relative motion of A and B, how much absolute time is
>> 1 second of A's clock? 1 second of B's clock? You can't make it work.
>
> Gee you are so fucing stupid. A clock second of a clock will contain a specific interval of absolute time depending on the absolute motion of the clock.

How much, Stupid Ken?

On 4/20/2022 5:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
>> something you never studied.
>
> You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.

And you are a retired senile crank. And it is you who has no
understanding of real physics.

On 4/20/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> This happens because drooling imbeciles like you bought what you pagan god wrote in 1905:
>
> TIME IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS TO ME.
>
> Fucking assholes, 117 years of pseudo-science inbreeding. For what?
>
> For nothing, and it's getting worse in your fucking community of relativistic lemmings.
>
> Go all you to the cliff right now. Real world will be ever grateful.
>
> But before jumping, please put down your femtosecond clocks, so a memorial can be built.
>
> While falling, think how many femtoseconds do you think that have left before......
>
> Don't forget to discount the corrections due to the impact of gravity on optical clocks with 18 digits, asshole.
>

Now now, Dick. You shouldn't have an autism meltdown where everyone can
see you make such a fool of yourself. You really should hold off and do
it in private.

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 06:26:16 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 5:55 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:49:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
> >>>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
> >>>> the words mean?
> >>>>
> >>> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
>
> >> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
> >
> > A does not see B running slow. He predict that B is running slow or running fast.
> A can predict whatever he wants, it's irrelevant. However, A will see
> (measure) B's clock as running slow.
> >> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
>
> > B does not see A running slow. He predict that A is running slow or running fast.
> B can predict whatever he wants. But B does measure A's clock as
> running slow.

In the delusions of a brainwashed, fanatic idiot
anything can happen; in the real GPS, of course,
the clocks are synchronized and running the same
pace.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >>>>>> turn out right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> >>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> >>>>> seconds at different rates.
> >>>> Different path through spacetime.
> >>>>
> >>>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> >>>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> >>>> book on Usenet. ...
> >>>
> >>> Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
> >>> clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
> >>> will contain a different interval of absolute time.
> >> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
> >> something you never studied.
> >
> > You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.
> And you are a chemical engineer.
> And you’ve never studied ANY physics.

Idiot, it's easy to see how Einstein fooled you guys
1. The only time exists is absolute time. A clock second will represent a different amount of absolute
time in different frames or different state of absolute motion of the clock.
2. Physicists are so indoctrinated and naive They accepted Einstein's wrong teachings:
* That time is flexible
*That the speed of light is observer independent.
*That a new set of measuring tools was invented to satisfy that the speed of light is observer
independent
I am not indoctrinated by Einstein's wrong teachings and that's why I was able to discover Model Mechanics. A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >>>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >>>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >>>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >>>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >>>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >>>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >>>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >>>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >>>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >>>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >>>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >>>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >>>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >>>>>> either.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >>>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >>>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >>>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >>>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 12:26:16 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 5:55 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:49:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
> >>>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
> >>>> the words mean?
> >>>>
> >>> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
>
> >> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
> >
> > A does not see B running slow. He predict that B is running slow or running fast.
> A can predict whatever he wants, it's irrelevant. However, A will see
> (measure) B's clock as running slow.

Idiot, how does A sees B runs slow.....give us an actual example how this is done.
> >> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
>
> > B does not see A running slow. He predict that A is running slow or running fast.
> B can predict whatever he wants. But B does measure A's clock as
> running slow.

So how does B measure A's clock rate? I think that you are full of shit and keep mouthing of nonsense.
> >
> >> how do you explain that with your mythical absolute time? You can't.
>
> And you didn't even try.
> >> That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
> >> a complete, total, absolute failure.
> >
> > Moron, the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.
> No, it does not, Stupid Ken. It's right there in the specs, the offset
> is done because of general relativity. No mention of mythical "absolute
> time".
> > They achieve this before the launch by offsetting (adding) the GPS clock second to have 4.1617 cycles of Cs 133 transitions.
> Because of general relativity.
> > This makes the GPS at its location runs at the same rate in terms of absolute time.
> No, Stupid Ken. There is no mention of absolute time anywhere in the GPS
> specs, only general relativity. This has been explained to you many
> times, but you are just too senile to understand.

Moron the spec doesn't have to mention absolute time. But the offset is designed to make the GPS second contain the same amount of absolute time as the earth second. Gee you are so stupid.
> >
> >>> However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time.
>
> >> So with my case of relative motion of A and B, how much absolute time is
> >> 1 second of A's clock? 1 second of B's clock? You can't make it work.
> >
> > Gee you are so fucing stupid. A clock second of a clock will contain a specific interval of absolute time depending on the absolute motion of the clock.
> How much, Stupid Ken?

Moron, clock time e state of absolute motion of the clockis dependent on t he absolute motion of the clock. Absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>>>>>> turn out right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>>>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>>>>>> seconds at different rates.
>>>>>> Different path through spacetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
>>>>>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
>>>>>> book on Usenet. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
>>>>> clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
>>>>> will contain a different interval of absolute time.
>>>> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
>>>> something you never studied.
>>>
>>> You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.
>> And you are a chemical engineer.
>> And you’ve never studied ANY physics.
>
> Idiot, it's easy to see how Einstein fooled you guys

Enjoy your fantasy land.

You may feel better ripping off one of your “too bad for you” replies to
the world. Still, nothing changes. The world is ignoring you and will
continue to ignore you.

> 1. The only time exists is absolute time. A clock second will represent
> a different amount of absolute
> time in different frames or different state of absolute motion of the clock.
> 2. Physicists are so indoctrinated and naive They accepted Einstein's wrong teachings:
> * That time is flexible
> *That the speed of light is observer independent.
> *That a new set of measuring tools was invented to satisfy that the
> speed of light is observer
> independent
> I am not indoctrinated by Einstein's wrong teachings and that's why I
> was able to discover Model Mechanics. A book on Model Mechanics is
> available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>>>>>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>>>>>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>>>>>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>>>>>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>>>>>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>>>>>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>>>>>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>>>>>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>>>>>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>>>>>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>>>>>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>>>>>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>>>>>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>>>>>>>> either.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>>>>>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>>>>>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>>>>>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>>>>>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/21/2022 1:36 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 12:26:16 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 5:55 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:49:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
>>>>>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
>>>>>> the words mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
>>
>>>> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
>>>
>>> A does not see B running slow. He predict that B is running slow or running fast.
>> A can predict whatever he wants, it's irrelevant. However, A will see
>> (measure) B's clock as running slow.
>
> Idiot, how does A sees B runs slow.....give us an actual example how this is done.

Atmospheric muons, Stupid Ken.

>>>> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
>>
>>> B does not see A running slow. He predict that A is running slow or running fast.
>> B can predict whatever he wants. But B does measure A's clock as
>> running slow.
>
> So how does B measure A's clock rate?

You don't already know this, Stupid Ken?
B measures a clock rate sent by a signal (as simple as a radio frequency
or a spectral line) and compares it to one locally.

> I think that you are full of shit and keep mouthing of nonsense.

Nobody cares what a nobody of physics like yourself thinks.
>>>
>>>> how do you explain that with your mythical absolute time? You can't.
>>
>> And you didn't even try.
>>>> That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
>>>> a complete, total, absolute failure.
>>>
>>> Moron, the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.
>> No, it does not, Stupid Ken. It's right there in the specs, the offset
>> is done because of general relativity. No mention of mythical "absolute
>> time".
>>> They achieve this before the launch by offsetting (adding) the GPS clock second to have 4.1617 cycles of Cs 133 transitions.
>> Because of general relativity.
>>> This makes the GPS at its location runs at the same rate in terms of absolute time.
>> No, Stupid Ken. There is no mention of absolute time anywhere in the GPS
>> specs, only general relativity. This has been explained to you many
>> times, but you are just too senile to understand.
>
> Moron the spec doesn't have to mention absolute time.

It would to provide a reason for doing so. Otherwise someone could state
at a design review that the clock is set slow to make the system fail,
and no offset should be used.

> But the offset is designed to make the GPS second contain the same amount of absolute time as the earth second.

Your assertions have zero value. Especially since there is no such
thing as a "GPS second" nor "absolute time", and GR (not "absolute
time") is mentioned as the reason for the clock offset.

> Gee you are so stupid.

Your assertions are worthless.

>>> Gee you are so fucing stupid. A clock second of a clock will contain a specific interval of absolute time depending on the absolute motion of the clock.
>> How much, Stupid Ken?
>
> Moron, clock time e state of absolute motion of the clockis dependent on t he absolute motion of the clock. Absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

So answering "how much" should be easy. Yet you cannot answer that at all.

On 4/21/2022 1:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Your upstanding is based on Einstein's failed theory and assumed that a
>>>>> clock second is an absolute interval of time. It is not. A clock second
>>>>> will contain a different interval of absolute time.
>>>> You are just mouthing words you do not understand to complain about
>>>> something you never studied.
>>>
>>> You are a woodworker.. You have no understanding of real physics.
>> And you are a chemical engineer.
>> And you’ve never studied ANY physics.
>
> Idiot, it's easy to see how Einstein fooled you guys
> 1. The only time exists is absolute time. A clock second will represent a different amount of absolute
> time in different frames or different state of absolute motion of the clock.

Assertions like that have no value in physics.

> 2. Physicists are so indoctrinated and naive They accepted Einstein's wrong teachings:

Assertions have no value.

> I am not indoctrinated by Einstein's wrong teachings

Translation: "I am uneducated in physics."

> and that's why I was able to discover Model Mechanics.

A batch of unverified and unverifiable assertions, like your Muddle
Mechanics, is not a "discovery" and is worthless.

> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> http://www.mоdelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Who appointed you to be the oracle? I thought that we were having a
>> discussion ......not having you to teach me your indoctrinated
>> knowledge.
>
> You aren't trying to discuss anything either, Stupid Ken. All you do is
> repeat, like a parrot, debunked crap like "clocks in different frames
> accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
> BRAWWWK! Polly wanna cracker!!" You are as much of a parrot as the
> Polish janitor.

You don't undrestand engilsh. You, *fake_money* shithole nazi countries,
turned anglo-saxon santa clauss christianity overnight, are to be
dismissed. And so, the russian army are treating humanly these satanists.

*_"those_nazi_should_be_shot,_and_that_would_be_merciful"_*.

*_our_govt_are_paying_for_that,_and_want_to_make_ukraine_big_israel_*

Proof of Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Satanism and Underground Biolabs. Is Putin
at War With The NWO https://www.bitchute.com/video/Wj54U4w9JbeP/