Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem <xxx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:35:33 -0400
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KadNg.136674$LF4.94046@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lVTMg.136601$LF4.131391@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:T8zMg.136560$LF4.126816@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rEyMg.136554$LF4.102421@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:
Sure it is a clock.....but it is not as accurate as an atomic
clock.
What makes one clock more accurate than another?
The frequency in the sun dial clock is not very repeatable. Also a
sun
dial
clock is not available in different frames. An atomic clock can be
carried
to different frames.
How do you suppose you could determine whether the frequency of a
clock
is repeatable?
You compare a number of them to see if they show the same elapsed
time
after
a while.
What does that have to do with repeatability? And suppose you compare
the elapsed times on "a number of them" and they're not the same - how
are you going to decide which one is the most accurate?
If identical clocks do not record the same rate of passage of time
then you
don't have a good physical clock. What to do? You don't use it as a
clock.
OK then, suppose they do record the same elapsed times. E.g. suppose
after a while, a number of sundials all reflect the same time. How does
that result relate to their accuracy?
Still thinking about this one, Seto?
Sigh....you have to compare different type of clocks to determine what clock
is the most accurate.
OK, so if you compare two different types of clocks and they show different elapsed times, which one is the more accurate?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- References:
- DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: Sue...
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: jem
- Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- From: kenseto
- DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- Prev by Date: Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- Next by Date: Re: RELATIVISTIC MASS
- Previous by thread: Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- Next by thread: Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|