Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.......

That’s not true, Ken.
Google “one-way light speed isotropy experiment”

> 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.
>

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

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:48:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.......
> That’s not true, Ken.
> Google “one-way light speed isotropy experiment”

Liar, it is true.
> > 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.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables