On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:22:25 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

> > 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.

Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to
within a few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to
discipline a local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.

It is only because we have available to us accurate atomic clocks
and accurate means for the world-wide dissemination of time that
irregularities in the Earth's motions can be detected and compensated
for when using millisecond pulsar rotation for timing. The Earth's orbit is
monitored within meters, and models of the Earth's orbit include the
effects of individual large asteroids. Irregularities in the Earth's rotation
are continually monitored via GPS over the short period, and through
such means as LLR over the long period. You are, of course, aware of
the effects of polar motion,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion
polar wander,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wander
and other effects. The poles shift irregularly over tens of meters
on a daily basis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion#/media/File:PolarMotion.png
and axial nutation results in Chandler wobble with a period
of 433 days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
and so on and so forth.

Without this knowledge, no single millisecond pulsar, or even a
small number of millisecond pulsars, could conceivably be used as
a time reference.

Now it is ***conceivable*** that a millisecond pulsar timing array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar_timing_array
could be developed to create "Pulsar Standard Time", but
the amount of data reduction needed to correct for low frequency
gravitational waves is simply enormous. To date, pulsar timing
arrays have not yet even DETECTED low frequency gravitational
waves, so it is not possible to correct for their effects, which are
anticipated to be in the tens of nanoseconds.

> 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,

Exactly.
The necessary corrections are *far* from "easily corrected for" and
we are *decades* from being able to create "Pulsar Standard Time"
independent of atomic 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>

OK, you got me! :-)

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 07:05:26 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks

People doing real measurements for real, not for gedanken
(GPS staff) don't share your opinion, poor fanatic idiot.

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

> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:22:25 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> 2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
> 3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
> The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to
> within a few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to
> discipline a local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
> Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.

You have this completely upside down.
Suppose for the sake of argument
that atomic clocks had not been invented,
and that the state of the art in timekeeping by clock
was still as in 1945. (so 10^-9)
Where would we take our long term time standard from?
The answer is of course pulsars.

> It is only because we have available to us accurate atomic clocks
> and accurate means for the world-wide dissemination of time that
> irregularities in the Earth's motions can be detected and compensated
> for when using millisecond pulsar rotation for timing. The Earth's orbit is
> monitored within meters, and models of the Earth's orbit include the
> effects of individual large asteroids.

Yes, covered that already,
that's why the AU had to be given a defined value.
AFAIK the remaining uncertainty is 'asteroid noise'.

> Irregularities in the Earth's rotation
> are continually monitored via GPS over the short period, and through
> such means as LLR over the long period. You are, of course, aware of
> the effects of polar motion,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion
> polar wander,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wander
> and other effects. The poles shift irregularly over tens of meters
> on a daily basis
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion#/media/File:PolarMotion.png
> and axial nutation results in Chandler wobble with a period
> of 433 days
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
> and so on and so forth.

Yes, the IERS keeps track of all that,
and publishes the results regularly. [1]
BTW, for the sake of historical accuracy:
the best pendulum clocks (Shortt free pendulum, at about 10^-8)
were by 1929 already good enough to demonstrate
some of the irregularities of the Earth's axial rotation.
(and also the tides, and by remeasuring, even the solid tides)

> Without this knowledge, no single millisecond pulsar, or even a
> small number of millisecond pulsars, could conceivably be used as
> a time reference.

Of course it can, and it will still be better than the ephemeris second,
which would be our second best choice.

> Now it is ***conceivable*** that a millisecond pulsar timing array
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar_timing_array
> could be developed to create "Pulsar Standard Time", but
> the amount of data reduction needed to correct for low frequency
> gravitational waves is simply enormous. To date, pulsar timing
> arrays have not yet even DETECTED low frequency gravitational
> waves, so it is not possible to correct for their effects, which are
> anticipated to be in the tens of nanoseconds.

All out of range, with the hypothesised absence of atomic clocks.

> > 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,
>
> Exactly.
> The necessary corrections are *far* from "easily corrected for" and
> we are *decades* from being able to create "Pulsar Standard Time"
> independent of atomic time.

We would already have done so, had atomic time been non-existent.
For the time being the question is if we can understand pulsar timing
to the accuracy to which it can nowadays be measured.
There is fundamental physics here, potentially:
If it were found that pulsar time has a systematic drift wrt atomic time
that would mean deep trouble indeed.

Some decades of patience ...

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>
>
> OK, you got me! :-)

In action in:
<https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-owT_zacADMU/XcOnXLldqCI/AAAAAAABieo/T0tHKPs9_VMmQl7ZmerpWivdCn__P0uJwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/e%25CC%2582tre%2Ba%25CC%2580%2Bl%2527ouest.png>

[1] Our resident nutters have no idea at all
of all this precise measurement and computing they are up against.
Everything interlocking with everything, accurate to atomic time,
and routinely in agreement with observation to similar accuracy.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Yes, to about ten kilometer.
Efforts to miniaturise them have failed,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 07:05:26 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com:
>
> > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
>
> People doing real measurements for real, not for gedanken
> (GPS staff) don't share your opinion, poor fanatic idiot.

So timing a pulsar is not 'a real measurement'?
Then what is?

Jan

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:

> > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> > 2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
> > 3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
> > The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to
> > within a few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to
> > discipline a local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
> > Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.
> You have this completely upside down.
> Suppose for the sake of argument
> that atomic clocks had not been invented,
> and that the state of the art in timekeeping by clock
> was still as in 1945. (so 10^-9)
> Where would we take our long term time standard from?
> The answer is of course pulsars.

OK. Suppose atomic clocks had not been invented.
We *do* have oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXO),
which have short-term stability of 10^-12 over a few
seconds, but with long-term stability limited to 10^-8.

Outline a protocol whereby an array of millisecond
pulsars may be used to discipline an OCXO so that
it outputs time in the Earth Centered Inertial frame to
an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, which is the sort of
accuracy that you might get from a GPS disciplined
rubidium clock over an integration period of a few
hours.

Remember that the Earth's tilt has an irregular diurnal
wobble typically amounting to tens of meters, and
in the 1940's, Earth's orbit was only known to tens of
kilometers on average.

Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
sort of like this:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/fig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg

"X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
for clarity."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 11:13:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 07:05:26 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com:
> >
> > > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> >
> > People doing real measurements for real, not for gedanken
> > (GPS staff) don't share your opinion, poor fanatic idiot.
> So timing a pulsar is not 'a real measurement'?

TAI is used for that instead your local idiocy.
Am I wrong?

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

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> > > 2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
> > > 3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
> > > The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to within a
> > > few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to discipline a
> > > local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
> > > Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.
> > You have this completely upside down.
> > Suppose for the sake of argument
> > that atomic clocks had not been invented,
> > and that the state of the art in timekeeping by clock
> > was still as in 1945. (so 10^-9)
> > Where would we take our long term time standard from?
> > The answer is of course pulsars.
>
> OK. Suppose atomic clocks had not been invented.
> We *do* have oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXO),
> which have short-term stability of 10^-12 over a few
> seconds, but with long-term stability limited to 10^-8.

Yes, no better than a Shortt free pendulum, really.
(but these have long term problems too,
with creep or jump of metal rods under tension)
But afaik the real competition is with the ephemeris second.
(as derived from the tropical year)

> Outline a protocol whereby an array of millisecond
> pulsars may be used to discipline an OCXO so that
> it outputs time in the Earth Centered Inertial frame to
> an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, which is the sort of
> accuracy that you might get from a GPS disciplined
> rubidium clock over an integration period of a few
> hours.

Eh, no rubidium clocks.
The question is pulsar time to better than 10^-8 long term stability,
and I don't think that this should be a problem.

> Remember that the Earth's tilt has an irregular diurnal
> wobble typically amounting to tens of meters, and
> in the 1940's, Earth's orbit was only known to tens of
> kilometers on average.
>
> Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> sort of like this:
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/f
ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
>
> "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> for clarity."
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf

Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
but is was long term stability we worried about, so...

Jan

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > > > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> > > > 2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
> > > > 3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
> > > > The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to within a
> > > > few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to discipline a
> > > > local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
> > > > Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.
> > > You have this completely upside down.
> > > Suppose for the sake of argument
> > > that atomic clocks had not been invented,
> > > and that the state of the art in timekeeping by clock
> > > was still as in 1945. (so 10^-9)
> > > Where would we take our long term time standard from?
> > > The answer is of course pulsars.
> >
> > OK. Suppose atomic clocks had not been invented.
> > We *do* have oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXO),
> > which have short-term stability of 10^-12 over a few
> > seconds, but with long-term stability limited to 10^-8.
> Yes, no better than a Shortt free pendulum, really.
> (but these have long term problems too,
> with creep or jump of metal rods under tension)
> But afaik the real competition is with the ephemeris second.
> (as derived from the tropical year)
> > Outline a protocol whereby an array of millisecond
> > pulsars may be used to discipline an OCXO so that
> > it outputs time in the Earth Centered Inertial frame to
> > an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, which is the sort of
> > accuracy that you might get from a GPS disciplined
> > rubidium clock over an integration period of a few
> > hours.
> Eh, no rubidium clocks.
> The question is pulsar time to better than 10^-8 long term stability,
> and I don't think that this should be a problem.
> > Remember that the Earth's tilt has an irregular diurnal
> > wobble typically amounting to tens of meters, and
> > in the 1940's, Earth's orbit was only known to tens of
> > kilometers on average.
> >
> > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > sort of like this:
> > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/f
> ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> >
> > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > for clarity."
> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> but is was long term stability we worried about, so...

Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.

*I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.

The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
determine time to tens of microseconds.

That's a far cry from nanosecond level.

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 22:31:22 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > > Millisecond pulsars are usable as reliable clocks ONLY because
> > > > > 1) we have extremely reliable atomic clocks
> > > > > 2) various means of accurately disseminating time around the world
> > > > > 3) and precise means of monitoring changes in local position.
> > > > > The GPS network implements one-way time transfer, accurate to within a
> > > > > few nanoseconds when multiple satellites are used to discipline a
> > > > > local oscillator using an integration period of several hours.
> > > > > Two-way time transfer protocols are available for highest accuracy.
> > > > You have this completely upside down.
> > > > Suppose for the sake of argument
> > > > that atomic clocks had not been invented,
> > > > and that the state of the art in timekeeping by clock
> > > > was still as in 1945. (so 10^-9)
> > > > Where would we take our long term time standard from?
> > > > The answer is of course pulsars.
> > >
> > > OK. Suppose atomic clocks had not been invented.
> > > We *do* have oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXO),
> > > which have short-term stability of 10^-12 over a few
> > > seconds, but with long-term stability limited to 10^-8.
> > Yes, no better than a Shortt free pendulum, really.
> > (but these have long term problems too,
> > with creep or jump of metal rods under tension)
> > But afaik the real competition is with the ephemeris second.
> > (as derived from the tropical year)
> > > Outline a protocol whereby an array of millisecond
> > > pulsars may be used to discipline an OCXO so that
> > > it outputs time in the Earth Centered Inertial frame to
> > > an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, which is the sort of
> > > accuracy that you might get from a GPS disciplined
> > > rubidium clock over an integration period of a few
> > > hours.
> > Eh, no rubidium clocks.
> > The question is pulsar time to better than 10^-8 long term stability,
> > and I don't think that this should be a problem.
> > > Remember that the Earth's tilt has an irregular diurnal
> > > wobble typically amounting to tens of meters, and
> > > in the 1940's, Earth's orbit was only known to tens of
> > > kilometers on average.
> > >
> > > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > > sort of like this:
> > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/f
> > ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> > >
> > > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > > for clarity."
> > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> > Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> > but is was long term stability we worried about, so...
> Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
> about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.
>
> *I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
> the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
> achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
> at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.
>
> The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
> pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
> signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
> several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
> determine time to tens of microseconds.
>
> That's a far cry from nanosecond level.

As anyone can check in GPS, your atomic clocks
are neither as stable as you declare.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

> > > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > > sort of like this:
> > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/f
> > ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> > >
> > > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > > for clarity."
> > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> > Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> > but is was long term stability we worried about, so...
> Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
> about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.
>
> *I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
> the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
> achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
> at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.
>
> The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
> pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
> signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
> several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
> determine time to tens of microseconds.
>
> That's a far cry from nanosecond level.

In any event, all of this discussion about the accuracy of
pulsar timing arrays etc. is totally besides my original point.

When I wrote, "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", I was
mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.

*You* were envisioning something entirely different, so
we were arguing cross-purposes.

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 08:34:54 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > > > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > > > sort of like this:
> > > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/figure/f
> > > ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-the-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> > > >
> > > > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > > > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > > > for clarity."
> > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> > > Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> > > but is was long term stability we worried about, so...
> > Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
> > about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.
> >
> > *I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
> > the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
> > achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
> > at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.
> >
> > The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
> > pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
> > signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
> > several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
> > determine time to tens of microseconds.
> >
> > That's a far cry from nanosecond level.
> In any event, all of this discussion about the accuracy of
> pulsar timing arrays etc. is totally besides my original point.
>
> When I wrote, "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",

Anyone can check GPS, it's actually your atomic clock
that must be adjusted accordingly to where it is and how
it is moving.

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

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > > > sort of like this:
> > > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/fi
gure/f
> > > ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-th
e-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> > > >
> > > > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > > > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > > > for clarity."
> > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> > > Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> > > but is was long term stability we worried about, so...
> > Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
> > about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.
> >
> > *I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
> > the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
> > achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
> > at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.
> >
> > The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
> > pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
> > signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
> > several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
> > determine time to tens of microseconds.
> >
> > That's a far cry from nanosecond level.
>
> In any event, all of this discussion about the accuracy of
> pulsar timing arrays etc. is totally besides my original point.
>
> When I wrote, "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", I was
> mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
> a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
> local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
> the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
> plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.

Well, yes, but that is a rather silly hypothesis.
You know where you are, and how you are moving,
to sufficient accuracy. You surprised me with it.

> *You* were envisioning something entirely different, so
> we were arguing cross-purposes.

Indeed. There is a fundamental question here,
which you apparently didn't want to talk about:
Is time, as derived from nothing but pure inertia, (spinning objects)
the same time as the time read off from atomic clocks?

Time will tell,

Jan

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 10:41:19 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > > > Remember also that millisecond pulsar signals look
> > > > > sort of like this:
> > > > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Jessner/publication/236871774/fi
> gure/f
> > > > ig1/AS:361006489456655@1463082062933/X-ray-and-radio-pulse-profiles-for-th
> e-six-brightest-millisecond-pulsars-Two-full-pulse_W640.jpg>
> > > > >
> > > > > "X-ray and radio pulse profiles for the six brightest
> > > > > millisecond pulsars. Two full pulse cycles are shown
> > > > > for clarity."
> > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4842.pdf
> > > > Yes, a lot of averaging will be needed,
> > > > but is was long term stability we worried about, so...
> > > Long-term stability may have been what *you* were worried
> > > about, but it was not what *I* was worried about.
> > >
> > > *I* was worried about precision time measurement to the
> > > the nanosecond level, which I do not believe can possibly be
> > > achieved with, say, pulsars and OCXO technology, at least
> > > at the surface of the Earth with all of its variable movements.
> > >
> > > The article from which I took the illustration discussed use of
> > > pulsars for spacecraft navigation. They estimated that pulsar
> > > signals could be use to ascertain spacecraft position to within
> > > several kilometers. That implies that pulsars might be used to
> > > determine time to tens of microseconds.
> > >
> > > That's a far cry from nanosecond level.
> >
> > In any event, all of this discussion about the accuracy of
> > pulsar timing arrays etc. is totally besides my original point.
> >
> > When I wrote, "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", I was
> > mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
> > a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
> > local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
> > the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
> > plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.
> Well, yes, but that is a rather silly hypothesis.
> You know where you are, and how you are moving,
> to sufficient accuracy. You surprised me with it.
> > *You* were envisioning something entirely different, so
> > we were arguing cross-purposes.
> Indeed. There is a fundamental question here,
> which you apparently didn't want to talk about:
> Is time, as derived from nothing but pure inertia, (spinning objects)
> the same time as the time read off from atomic clocks?

It may only be fundamental for an idiot mystician,
similiar to you. Time of the real world has very little
in common with your delusions anyway.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:41:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
>
> > When I wrote, "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", I was
> > mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
> > a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
> > local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
> > the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
> > plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.
> Well, yes, but that is a rather silly hypothesis.
> You know where you are, and how you are moving,
> to sufficient accuracy. You surprised me with it.

You did not read the context. It was my response to a
silly statement made by maluw, who wrote:

"Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong"

> > *You* were envisioning something entirely different, so
> > we were arguing cross-purposes.
> Indeed. There is a fundamental question here,
> which you apparently didn't want to talk about:
> Is time, as derived from nothing but pure inertia, (spinning objects)
> the same time as the time read off from atomic clocks?
>
> Time will tell,
>
> Jan

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

> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:41:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > When I wrote, "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", I was
> > > mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
> > > a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
> > > local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
> > > the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
> > > plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.
> > Well, yes, but that is a rather silly hypothesis.
> > You know where you are, and how you are moving,
> > to sufficient accuracy. You surprised me with it.
>
> You did not read the context. It was my response to a
> silly statement made by maluw, who wrote:
>
> "Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong"

Quite possible, plead guilty to reading selectively,

Jan

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 13:32:30 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:41:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > When I wrote, "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", I was
> > > mentally envisioning what would happen if one tried to use
> > > a *SINGLE* pulsar as a timing reference to discipline a
> > > local oscillator without taking into account Earth's orbit,
> > > the rotation of the Earth, wobbling of the Earth's axis,
> > > plate tectonics, Earth tides and so forth.
> > Well, yes, but that is a rather silly hypothesis.
> > You know where you are, and how you are moving,
> > to sufficient accuracy. You surprised me with it.
> You did not read the context. It was my response to a
> silly statement made by maluw, who wrote:
>
> "Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong"

And that was my response to an idiotic claim of bodkin,
who 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.

It's a simple religious bullshit, and your stance "well,
maybe real clocks don't match the prophecies of
my beloved guru, but that only means they're unreliable" -
is no way better.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:57:30 AM UTC-4, 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.

That's what I was trying to convey to you. Einstein's model have space-time and my model does not have spacetime.......instead my model has the aether (the E-Matrix).
>
> Tom Roberts

On 4/24/2022 1:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:57:30 AM UTC-4, 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.
>
> That's what I was trying to convey to you. Einstein's model have space-time and my model does not have spacetime.......instead my model has the aether (the E-Matrix).

Except for the fact that your "model" isn't even a science model, since
you have no predictions, no equations which can be used, no evidence of
your claims, nothing except assertions.

Come back when you have an actual model

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:52:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 1:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:57:30 AM UTC-4, 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.
> >
> > That's what I was trying to convey to you. Einstein's model have space-time and my model does not have spacetime.......instead my model has the aether (the E-Matrix).
> Except for the fact that your "model" isn't even a science model, since
> you have no predictions, no equations which can be used, no evidence of
> your claims, nothing except assertions.

Except that you are a stupid moron!!!!!
>
> Come back when you have an actual model

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:59:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.
>
Moron, that's assuming that the one-way speed of light is isotropic between two relatively moving observers......you are so fucking stupid. The one-speed of light is observer dependent. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > 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.

So the GR effects is not observer dependent? 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 4/25/2022 12:06 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:59:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Moron, that's assuming that the one-way speed of light is isotropic between two relatively moving observers......you are so fucking stupid.

No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light, which is not only known to
be isotropic, it has been MEASURED as being isotropic. Why do you lie?

Since the speed of light, one way or two way, is constant, any changes
in frequency received must be due to either Doppler or SR/GR effects.

> The one-speed of light is observer dependent. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Your assertions are not proof of anything. Especially when your
assertions go against actual measurements.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> So the GR effects is not observer dependent?

The measurements of GR effects can be observer dependent, but remember,
the GPS system is designed to work at or near the geoid, and at
relatively low speeds, so everyone has the same GR effect, ~38.5
microseconds/day for GR satellites.

>>
>> 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.

And you *still* can't answer this.

On 4/25/2022 11:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:52:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/24/2022 1:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:57:30 AM UTC-4, 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.
>>>
>>> That's what I was trying to convey to you. Einstein's model have space-time and my model does not have spacetime.......instead my model has the aether (the E-Matrix).
>> Except for the fact that your "model" isn't even a science model, since
>> you have no predictions, no equations which can be used, no evidence of
>> your claims, nothing except assertions.
>
> Except that you are a stupid moron!!!!!

Calling me names will never change the fact that you simply don't have a
science model at all. No predictions, no equations, no observations, no
evidence, no math, nothing but assertions. No wonder your Muddle
Mechanics is a complete, total, absolute failure and not a theory at all.
>>
>> Come back when you have an actual model

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 19:13:52 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 12:06 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:59:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Moron, that's assuming that the one-way speed of light is isotropic between two relatively moving observers......you are so fucking stupid.
> No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light, which is not only known to
> be isotropic, it has been MEASURED as being isotropic. Why do you lie?

No, stupid Mike, it wasn't. Why do you lie?

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 12:06 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:59:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> 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 even measuredalready 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.
> >>
> > Moron, that's assuming that the one-way speed of light is isotropic between two relatively moving observers......yever bou are so fucking stupid.
> No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light, which is not only known to
> be isotropic, it has been MEASURED as being isotropic. Why do you lie?

Stupid moron Mike, that's a lie, the OWLS in the opposite directions never been never been measured.......because there is no way to synch two distant clocks until the GPS. They use the GPS synch clocks to measure the speed of neutrinos at a distance. Why they don't measure the OWLS using two mountain tops using the GPS synch clocks? The answer is that they knew that the OWLS in the opposite directions is not constant. Gee you are so fucking stupid....all you do is lying.
>
> Since the speed of light, one way or two way, is constant, any changes
> in frequency received must be due to either Doppler or SR/GR effects.
> > The one-speed of light is observer dependent. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> Your assertions are not proof of anything. Especially when your Mike,
> assertions go against actual measurements.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > So the GR effects is not observer dependent?
> The measurements of GR effects can be observer dependent, but remember,
> the GPS system is designed to work at or near the geoid, and at
> relatively low speeds, so everyone has the same GR effect, ~38.5
> microseconds/day for GR satellites.
> >>
> >> 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.
> And you *still* can't answer this.