Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 20, 5:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Michael Moroney wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Michael Moroney wrote:
The observatory at Greenwich is no longer the world's official time
source. It hasn't been since 1954. Get with the times, in case you
haven't noticed it is now the 21st century!
Nobody is talking about moving meridians or anything. In fact the
opposite is true. By adjusting the length of the year on occasion,
we assure that when the clocks read noon at Greenwich, the sun is at
its peak elevation.
And you do not get that means you are adjusting the atomic clocks
to G.M.T .
sheesh you are dense.
Nobody is touching the atomic clock. The length of the solar day is
adjusted by inserting an occasional 86401 second day, rather than the
usual 86400 second day.
LOL
You are funny,
The length of the solar day is beign adjusted?
How you doing that.. changing the Earth spin rate huh?
Well, we're not changing it, that's for sure, but the Earth spin rate
does change, yes. That's precisely the point.
It takes a different number of seconds for the Earth to rotate on its
axis and a different number of seconds to go around the Sun.
That's the point.
LOL
Poor moron Mikey does not gather that change is done to the
atomic timing method that would count as a Day.
Boy he is stupid..
LOL
Nobody is adjusting the atomic clocks.
You just said the length of a day will be more seconds.
(that is adjusting the clock moron)
Do you think you are actually adjusting the Earth spin rate
instead?
Sheesh you are freakin dumb.
LOL
If you allow the atomic clocks to "adjust" G.M.T. time instead
you would end up with noon in the dark.
"GMT" time is obsolete.
Only to morons like you that do not understand the reason
for changing the "total" seconds in the day.
LOL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- References:
- Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: PD
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: PD
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: PD
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- From: Spaceman
- Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- Prev by Date: Re: Of the WGS84 model and surface acceleration
- Next by Date: Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- Previous by thread: Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- Next by thread: Re: Twins paradox debunked and broken down
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|