In a message dated 5/30/2007 22:42:08 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> it cannot directly read-in RS-232 output from the 53132A
> (such as I posted
> yesterday). This is because of the Comma the HP unit inserts
> in the numbers.
>please send short file and I will look
haps I think about a way to store such things in the
ini-file.
Best regards
Ulrich
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007 22:43
> An: time-nuts@febo.com
> Be
Bill Beam wrote:
>>> Assume satellite in circular orbit. (Not really necessary.)
>>> Assume test mass's released at rest wrt satellite center of mass.
>>> Inner test mass released closer to Earth and outer released farther
>>>
>> >from Earth. Also assume no air currents, no relativity, no
On Thu, 31 May 2007 01:52:34 +1200, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>Bill Beam wrote:
>>Assume satellite in circular orbit. (Not really necessary.)
>>Assume test mass's released at rest wrt satellite center of mass.
>>Inner test mass released closer to Earth and outer released farther
>>from Earth. A
In a message dated 5/30/2007 13:06:23 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regards
Ulrich Bangert
Hi Ulrich,
I am still using plotter daily, easier to use than Stable32.
Some comments on Plotter:
it cannot directly read-in RS-232 output from the 53132A (such as I posted
uency measurement
> Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 01:10:02 -0800, Bill Beam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Gentlemen: Those of you who have never taken a university physics
> >course are
On Wed, 30 May 2007 01:10:02 -0800, Bill Beam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gentlemen: Those of you who have never taken a university physics course
>are excused for confusion over centripital/centrifugal/psudo forces. Some of
>you who did take a university physics class spent too much time aslee
Bill Beam wrote:
> It helps if this problem is solved in a proper (Earth based) inertial frame
> and to consider the total energy (kinetic plus potential) of the test masses.
>
But there are no strictly inertial frames based on the Earth.
The earth rotates around its axis (neglecting precession
K, I believe I got it now.
Thanks
Didier KO4BB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:37 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Dr Bruce Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks &
;Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
> Bill Beam wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> Not true.
>>>> Very simple experiments will show occupants of
3s and my best regards
Ulrich, DF6JB
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Didier Juges
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007 02:35
> An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Betreff: Re: [time-n
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:21 -0400, Didier Juges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Thanks a lot again.
>
>I had no idea time-nuts would drive me to brush-up on physics :-)
yeah. Only problem is, I think my brain exploded a few messages back in this
thread!
I think I liked pre-Einstein physics a lot
Bill Beam wrote:
>>> Not true.
>>> Very simple experiments will show occupants of the satellite that they
>>> are in a non-inertial reference frame. (Release a few test masses
>>> about the cabin and you will observe that they move/accelerate for no
>>> apparent reason, unless the satellite
James,
Where were you all week-end?
Your explanations are so clear, it makes sense now. Thank you very much.
I understand now that centrifugal forces are necessary to explain the behavior
of objects when an accelerating frame of reference is used, but not necessary
(actually counter-productive
Bill Beam wrote:
>>> Not true.
>>> Very simple experiments will show occupants of the satellite that they
>>> are in a non-inertial reference frame. (Release a few test masses
>>> about the cabin and you will observe that they move/accelerate for no
>>> apparent reason, unless the satellite is in
Bill Hawkins
>
[I should also edit part of my previous post, as indicated in the
bracketed text below.]
> -Original Message-----
> From: James Maynard
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:26 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-
cussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
> Betreff: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
>
>
> Aargh!
>
> Please change "Centripetal force also goes away if radial
> motion goes away." to "Centripetal force also
iscussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: RE: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
Finally, something that makes sense! Thanks, James Maynard.
The idea that the centripetal force that balances the gravitational
force is fictitious was not popular
ol of altitude.
Bill Hawkins
-Original Message-
From: James Maynard
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
Didier Juges wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> A lot of th
Didier Juges wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> A lot of the statements that have been made lately on this subject kind of
> make sense to me in a way taken in isolation, but they do not all agree with
> each other, and that makes me uncomfortable.
>
> Example:
>
> I do not understand why the frame of reference
Bruce,
A lot of the statements that have been made lately on this subject kind of make
sense to me in a way taken in isolation, but they do not all agree with each
other, and that makes me uncomfortable.
Example:
I do not understand why the frame of reference would matter when you talk about
On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:27:42 +1200, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>Bill
>Bill Beam wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:31:40 +1200, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ulrich, Didier
>>>
>>> Talking about forces, gravitational fields etc makes no physical sense
>>> if the observer's reference frame i
Bill
Bill Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:31:40 +1200, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>
>
>> Ulrich, Didier
>>
>> Talking about forces, gravitational fields etc makes no physical sense
>> if the observer's reference frame isn't specified.
>> For an observer in/on a satellite orbiting about the
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:31:40 +1200, Dr Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>Ulrich, Didier
>
>Talking about forces, gravitational fields etc makes no physical sense
>if the observer's reference frame isn't specified.
>For an observer in/on a satellite orbiting about the Earth with their
>reference frame fixe
Neville Michie wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
> I am still having difficulty getting my head around the gravity point.
> Now I accept, in principle, that due to relativity an intense
> gravity field will slow a clock.
> My problem is visualising where you will find this field.
> At the centre of this
Ulrich, Didier
Talking about forces, gravitational fields etc makes no physical sense
if the observer's reference frame isn't specified.
For an observer in/on a satellite orbiting about the Earth with their
reference frame fixed with respect to the satellite.
There is no gravitational field, wha
Ulrich Bangert wrote:
> Didier,
>
>
>> Since you know a lot more about this than I do, I will accept
>> your statement that centrifugal forces (or more generally
>> inertial forces) are fictitious, but only because you insist.
>> As long as I can predict their effect and calculate their
>>
> Hi All,
I am still having difficulty getting my head around the gravity point.
Now I accept, in principle, that due to relativity an intense
gravity field will slow a clock.
My problem is visualising where you will find this field.
At the centre of this planet gravity (from the planet) is zer
d my best regards
>Ulrich, DF6JB
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Didier Juges
>> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 17:59
>> An: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
>
-Original Message-
From: Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:23 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
---%< snip ---
In case you do not believe take the next textb
effect and calculate their
> magnitude, that's all this engineer is interested in :-)
>
> 73,
> Didier KO4BB
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:23 AM
in :-)
73,
Didier KO4BB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Bangert
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:23 AM
To: 'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravit
s of study in teaching physics.
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Didier Juges
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 13:53
> An: time-nuts@febo.com
> Betreff: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
&
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Didier Juges
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2007 13:53
> An: time-nuts@febo.com
> Betreff: [time-nuts] FW: Pendulums & Atomic Clocks & Gravity
>
>
> Ulrich,
Ulrich,
I am quite familiar with the cannon analogy. If I may use this analogy
too, please consider the following:
There must be a force balancing the force of gravity, otherwise the
satellite would not cease from accelerating under gravity alone.
Gravity exerts a force on the satellite which
36 matches
Mail list logo
