On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass, are affected the same by gravity,Dumbfuck,
and Eotvos found all objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
Light has no mass.
Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
Dumbfuck,
Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass, are
affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all objects are
affected the same regardless of the material,
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 07:09:40 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass, areYes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all objects are
affected the same regardless of the material,
approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and velocities << c.
So it does not apply to light.
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shit
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 4:17:38 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
On 12/25/2023 5:56 PM, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
What doesn't gravity affect?Dumbfuck,
Light has no mass.
Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
Dumbfuck,
Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
Affects even dumbfucks
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
or clocks.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
"improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the rule
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass, areYes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all objects are
affected the same regardless of the material,
approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and velocities
<< c. So it does not apply to light.
GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with speed
0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a lightray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
Tom Roberts
purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
And that it will be nothing. According to your Shit
light [in vacuum] takes always straight/geodesic
paths.
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom RobertsYou REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
wrote:
On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
speed
0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as aray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
light
deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
Tom Roberts
rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
just making it up and attributing it to me.
Tom Roberts
mass,
so photons must have mass.
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom RobertsThis is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
wrote:
On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom RobertsYou REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
wrote:
On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
speed
0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as aray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
light
deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
Tom Roberts
rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
just making it up and attributing it to me.
Tom Roberts
mass,
so photons must have mass.The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
Tom Roberts
How can anything with energy not have mass?
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
How can anything with energy not have mass?
Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
light.
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
How can anything with energy not have mass?
Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of >>>> light.
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
black holes.
Tom just said light has mass.
How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
How can anything with energy not have mass?
Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of >>>>>> light.
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses, >>>> black holes.
Tom just said light has mass.
No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
(light has mass) and attributing it to him.
How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
try to keep up.
So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?
How can anything with energy not have mass?
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by
gravity.
Everything about relativity is pure fiction. There is no fourth
spatial dimension except in the minds of the stupid and gullible,
and time is not a spatial dimension.
Tom just said light has mass.
if [a photon doesn't have mass, then the consensus that it is
affected by gravity is wrong because gravity only affects mass.
4-momentum is the pseudoscience of relativity.
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?
Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.
Is heat slowed by gravity when it leaves the Sun? I do not think so.
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?
Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.
Your confusing disagreeing with misunderstanding. Do try not to be a mindless devotee.
Regarding GPS and Relativity... I noticed a paper, cited below from NIST, which says that the on board satelitte oscillator broadcasts at 10.23 MHz. (Not to 10229999.99543Mhz as normally assumed.) This is also confirmed
by a former NASA GPS engineer Larry Ortega who concurs that ,contrary
to common assumption, the on board sat clocks are NOT preset to 10229999.99543Hz
But rather set to 10.23 Mhz and instead corrected every 24 hours
from the ground.
The correction is specified in the
"INTERFACE SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT" for GPS:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
From 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.
The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock
rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates
are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the
P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
SV = space vehicle, satellite.
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR, >>>> or clocks.
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
"improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR, >>>>>> or clocks.
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
"improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why >>>> the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and >>>> not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website)
10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426
1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on
the ground.
Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 23:13:15 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/30/2023 3:01 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote:Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be
On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
or clocks.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
"improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why >>>>>> the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and >>>>>> not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website)
10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426
1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on
the ground.
Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for >>> both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
9192631770 Cs cycles, not 9192661770.
Yes, sorry my typos. It is 9192631770.
But my point is that you say you can calculate total gains of 457 for 10.22999Mhz
from the clock gains of another frequency ( that frequency being 8.9875518e+16hz
which has a gain of +446 which you then use to calculate the gain
of +457 for 10.22999Mhz)
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 14:19:33 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.12.2023 14:22, skrev Lou:
Regarding GPS and Relativity... I noticed a paper, cited below from NIST, >>> which says that the on board satelitte oscillator broadcasts at 10.23 MHz. >>> (Not to 10229999.99543Mhz as normally assumed.) This is also confirmed
by a former NASA GPS engineer Larry Ortega who concurs that ,contrary
to common assumption, the on board sat clocks are NOT preset to
10229999.99543Hz
But rather set to 10.23 Mhz and instead corrected every 24 hours
from the ground.
You have been told before:
On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 18:20:28 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The correction is specified in the
"INTERFACE SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT" for GPS:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
From 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.
The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock
rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates
are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the
P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
SV = space vehicle, satellite.
Yes. But it’s the only time in the whole paper that 1022999 is mentioned. Every other reference in the paper says the sat clock broadcast frequency is 10.23Mhz. And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 00:13:15 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be
9192631770 Cs cycles
No, stupid Mike, sorry, all the serious timekeeping system and clocks are ignoring your ideological madness. Te second is still 1/(24*60*60) of
a day, just like it was when your idiot guru lived and mumbled.
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 14:19:33 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.12.2023 14:22, skrev Lou:
You have been told before:Regarding GPS and Relativity... I noticed a paper, cited below from NIST, >>> which says that the on board satelitte oscillator broadcasts at 10.23 MHz. >>> (Not to 10229999.99543Mhz as normally assumed.) This is also confirmed
by a former NASA GPS engineer Larry Ortega who concurs that ,contrary
to common assumption, the on board sat clocks are NOT preset to
10229999.99543Hz
But rather set to 10.23 Mhz and instead corrected every 24 hours
from the ground.
On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 18:20:28 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The correction is specified in the
"INTERFACE SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT" for GPS:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
From 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.
The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock
rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates
are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the
P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
SV = space vehicle, satellite.
Yes. But it’s the only time in the whole paper that 1022999 is mentioned. Every other reference in the paper says the sat clock broadcast frequency is 10.23Mhz.
And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.
No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 03:17:25 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/30/2023 8:07 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 23:13:15 UTC, Volney wrote:And the calculations based on your incorrect value?
On 12/30/2023 3:01 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote:Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be
On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.
or clocks.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
"improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and >>>>>>>> not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website) >>>>>>
10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426
1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on >>>>>> the ground.
Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for >>>>> both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
9192631770 Cs cycles, not 9192661770.
Yes, sorry my typos. It is 9192631770.
But my point is that you say you can calculate total gains of 457 for 10.22999MhzThat number 8.9875518e+16 is not a frequency. It is c^2.
from the clock gains of another frequency ( that frequency being 8.9875518e+16hz
which has a gain of +446 which you then use to calculate the gainAnd you have that value wrong as well.
of +457 for 10.22999Mhz)
47379129.4927 ÷ 10229999.9954= 4.63139095932
If this above calculation and its resulting value is wrong...
Then presumably you think using the same formula as above but
dividing into a different frequency (c^2),
also gives the wrong value?
47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10
[snip rest of GIGO]
You are very, very confused.
Not so confused as to realise that all GR does is divide potential (GM/r) into frequency to get a clock gain of + 5.2716726e-10
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.
On 12/31/2023 10:08 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.
Word salad gibberish.
The speed of light 299,792,458 m/s is the VACUUM speed of light. In a
non-vacuum like air, the frequency is unchanged. Only the speed and
wavelength change.
No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.
Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is explicitly derived from
10.23 MHz using GR calculations for the satellite orbit. You're in denial.
The frequency and the wavelength are two sides of the same coin. The only reason the frequency changes in this case is due to the forming of the compression waves.
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.
On 12/31/2023 10:08 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.
Word salad gibberish.
The speed of light 299,792,458 m/s is the VACUUM speed of light. In a
non-vacuum like air, the frequency is unchanged. Only the speed and
wavelength change.
No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.
Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is explicitly derived from
10.23 MHz using GR calculations for the satellite orbit. You're in denial.
Anderson said it would be 10.2299999954326 at the satellite and 10.23 at the receiver; did he not?
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:19:13 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:27 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 03:17:25 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/30/2023 8:07 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 23:13:15 UTC, Volney wrote:And the calculations based on your incorrect value?
On 12/30/2023 3:01 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote:Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be
On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shitNot true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers >>>>>>>>>>>>> or real anything.
or clocks.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the >>>>>>>>>>> "improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website) >>>>>>>>
10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426
1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on >>>>>>>> the ground.
Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for
both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
9192631770 Cs cycles, not 9192661770.
Yes, sorry my typos. It is 9192631770.
But my point is that you say you can calculate total gains of 457 for 10.22999MhzThat number 8.9875518e+16 is not a frequency. It is c^2.
from the clock gains of another frequency ( that frequency being 8.9875518e+16hz
which has a gain of +446 which you then use to calculate the gainAnd you have that value wrong as well.
of +457 for 10.22999Mhz)
47379129.4927 ÷ 10229999.9954= 4.63139095932
If this above calculation and its resulting value is wrong...
What is this 47379129.4927 number?
Please note I did start off trying to be polite. But seeing as I’m talking to
someone from the gutter ( who doesn’t even know what GM/r is...)
Ever heard of GM/r ? Obviously not. Because that’s what 47379129.4927 is.
I think you are just upset that you don’t need a byzantine formulae from GR to come up with the “clock gains” of 5.27e-10 for 4.12r. A simple GM/r ÷f
does the job just as well. Considering 5.27e-10 for 4.12r is also what GR calculates
Oh! And by the way. You probably don’t know what 4.12 r is either.
I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with the average orbital radius of
GPS satelittes.
And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.
But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
it uses at most 10.229999.99543.
also gives the wrong value?
47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10
GIGO. 8.9875518e+16 is NOT a frequency!
Since when can any number not be a frequency!!
Wow, you don’t realise frequencies can be any number
Including 8.9875518e+16 hz !!!
[snip rest of GIGO]
You are very, very confused.
Not so confused as to realise that all GR does is divide potential (GM/r) >>> into frequency to get a clock gain of + 5.2716726e-10
Prove 47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 does not equal 5.2716726e-1
Cant? Thought not.
So for instance in the frequency 8.9875518e+16 hz...
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
On Monday 1 January 2024 at 16:57:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/31/2023 2:48 PM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:19:13 UTC, Volney wrote:calling the numerical value of c^2 a frequency, how am I to guess what
On 12/31/2023 5:27 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 03:17:25 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 12/30/2023 8:07 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 23:13:15 UTC, Volney wrote:And the calculations based on your incorrect value?
On 12/30/2023 3:01 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be >>>>>>>> 9192631770 Cs cycles, not 9192661770.
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or real anything.Not true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
or clocks.
Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just >>>>>>>>>>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website) >>>>>>>>>>
10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426 >>>>>>>>>>
1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on
the ground.
Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for
both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
Yes, sorry my typos. It is 9192631770.
But my point is that you say you can calculate total gains of 457 for 10.22999MhzThat number 8.9875518e+16 is not a frequency. It is c^2.
from the clock gains of another frequency ( that frequency being 8.9875518e+16hz
which has a gain of +446 which you then use to calculate the gain >>>>>>> of +457 for 10.22999Mhz)And you have that value wrong as well.
47379129.4927 ÷ 10229999.9954= 4.63139095932
If this above calculation and its resulting value is wrong...
What is this 47379129.4927 number?
Please note I did start off trying to be polite. But seeing as I’m talking to
someone from the gutter ( who doesn’t even know what GM/r is...)
Ever heard of GM/r ? Obviously not. Because that’s what 47379129.4927 is. >> You never said so. And when you are coming up with word salad like
some random number you may have pulled out of your ass is supposed to
mean? I cannot read your mind, even if it is only a few neurons.
I think you are just upset that you don’t need a byzantine formulae from GRThe average orbital radius of GPS satellites is 5.27e-10? In what units?
to come up with the “clock gains” of 5.27e-10 for 4.12r. A simple GM/r ÷f
does the job just as well. Considering 5.27e-10 for 4.12r is also what GR >>> calculates
Oh! And by the way. You probably don’t know what 4.12 r is either.
I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with the average orbital radius of
GPS satelittes.
You don’t know the average orbital radius of GPS satelittes? > Try Google.
1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
also gives the wrong value?
47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10
GIGO. 8.9875518e+16 is NOT a frequency!
Since when can any number not be a frequency!!
Wow, you don’t realise frequencies can be any number
Including 8.9875518e+16 hz !!!
But c^2 is NOT a frequency! It doesn't have the correct units of
But 8.9875518e+16 is just a number.
And any number can be a
frequency.
frequency (it is m^2/s^2, frequencies have units of 1/s)
Remember, if the units are incorrect, the answer is AUTOMATICALLY wrong!
The usual total for relativists GR calculation for clock gains is 5.27e-10 What units is that number in?
And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
And as you may know, in the relativist formula to calculate clock
gains c^2 is used.
You say that’s OK to do. OK so tell me...
In that context what units is your c^2 in? You just said it
cant be a frequency, nor is m^2/s^2 a unit of speed . What units is it supposed to be then?
[snip rest of GIGO]
You are very, very confused.
Not so confused as to realise that all GR does is divide potential (GM/r) >>>>> into frequency to get a clock gain of + 5.2716726e-10
Prove 47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 does not equal 5.2716726e-1
Cant? Thought not.
It is actually 5.2716726e-10, but what are 9 orders of magnitude between
friends?
Thought you couldn’t prove it wrong.
IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 07:05:40 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two. >>
My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager
on the
engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.
Very funny. But it wasn’t just the sign that wasn’t known. Neil Ashby himself says it was the * pmagnitude* that also wasn’t known.
So how could they have preset a specific magnitude before launch,
when they didn’t know what magnitude to expect?
Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
incorporated [5]!"
"A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system
so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final
orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer
could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
+442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:14:26 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
And on page 17:
“ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
And accurately modelled using just GM/r ÷ f
*If the preset before launch was at 10.22999Mhz.*
The only problem is...is the sat clock preset to 10.22999Mhz?
Except for that one NIST quote, all the other NIST and other specs say
it’s not preset before launch. And that the sat clock is preset to
and runs and broadcasts at 10.23Mhz.
So that’s a contradiction that only a GPS programmer/ engineer can answer. Not any relativist wiki source based on hearsay.
All I can say is I also found a quora quote from a NASA GPS engineer Ortega who very explicitly says....the clocks are NOT preset to 10.22999Mhz
before launch.
On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 03:47:48 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/1/2024 3:46 PM, Lou wrote:
1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
Well yes, the total time dilation times the compensated transmit
frequency gives the desired receive frequency,
OoH!! not using proper SI units. Your answers must be automatically
wrong.
Oh but I forgot. You can break your own stupid rules.
Since when can a frequency not be 8.9875518e+16 ?
Or any number for that matter?
If you got a frequency 8.9875518e+16 Hz from somewhere else, and it is
merely a bizarre coincidence that it just happens to be the value of c^2
in SI units, explain where that frequency comes from.
What? Like the way GR uses c^2 as a frequency.
Even though it breaks
the SI rules?
I didn’t actually start with 8.9875518e+16 Hz. I started with 9192631770Hz seeing as that’s the frequency of a sats caesium clock.
Found it worked.
Then tried 10.29 and then looked at the GR formula and realised that
the c^2 in the GR formula was actually being covertly used as a frequency too.
Otherwise how did whoever invented that formula fantasise that 5.27e-10 was frequency related.?
And any number can be a
frequency.
Well, if you want to use the number which just happens to be the valueAnd what does your 8.9875518e+16 m^2/s^2 have to do with frequency?
of c^2 in SI units as a frequency, the frequency of WHAT???? Justify
your answer as relevant to the GPS.
Cant answer? Thought not.
[snip rest of GIGO]
frequency (it is m^2/s^2, frequencies have units of 1/s)The usual total for relativists GR calculation for clock gains is 5.27e-10 >>> What units is that number in?
Remember, if the units are incorrect, the answer is AUTOMATICALLY wrong! >>>
Unitless.
Ha ha. Oh dear. Just broke your own rules again.
And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency >>> gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
Unitless. It is a ratio, converting one frequency to another for example.
And as you may know, in the relativist formula to calculate clock
gains c^2 is used.
You say that’s OK to do. OK so tell me...
In that context what units is your c^2 in? You just said it
cant be a frequency, nor is m^2/s^2 a unit of speed . What units is it
supposed to be then?
Once again m^2/s^2 which is not a common property like speed, length, orThought you couldn’t answer
area. c is m/s which is a speed. c^2 is part of larger equations, it's
not used by itself.
Here try again:
What SI units is 8.9875518e+16 m^2/s^2 in your formula?
Cant answer? That’s because you just broke your own silly rules.
[snip rest of GIGO]
You are very, very confused.
Not so confused as to realise that all GR does is divide potential (GM/r)
into frequency to get a clock gain of + 5.2716726e-10
Prove 47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 does not equal 5.2716726e-1
Cant? Thought not.
It is actually 5.2716726e-10, but what are 9 orders of magnitude between >>>> friends?
I told you multiple times it was 5.2716726e-10, Starting on Dec 21.
Thought you couldn’t prove it wrong.
What do you mean? 47379430.8842 / 8.9875518e+16 is 5.2716726e-10 not
5.2716726e-1, just as I said.
I told you multiple times it was 5.2716726e-10, Starting on Dec 21. Heres
my quote from my post to you back on december 31, repeated twice that
day then again on Jan 1, Etc...
“47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10 “
So answer the questions
What SI units are are 8.9875518e+16m^2/s^2 and 5.27e-10 in your formulas?
Cant answer?
Then your GR formulas answers are, using your own logic,
also completely wrong.
And incidentally, contrary to your mistaken belief that Hz is not a SI unit...
...the Hz of 8.9875518e+16hz I my formula IS an SI unit.
So using it, or any other frequency in the formula GM/r ÷f is correct.
Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the following question...
What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
incorporated [5]!"
Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
"A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system
so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final
orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer
could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
+442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
whether this prediction was pre or post.
That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts 446ps?
And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543.
But why does the NIST specs
you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10.23Mhz?
IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
Facts:
The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
see fig 20.
The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
in the middle of a hurricane.
This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.
"The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
"On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
Don't you agree?
Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
for relativity?
The clock adjustment for gravity is not about relativity. Only gravity. It was obtained empirically.
Snip rest of volney nonsense
Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the >>> following question...
What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
(c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.
Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
any result I get is automatically incorrect.
the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas. So answer the question.
Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
Cant answer again?
According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.
On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
for relativity?
So you don't agree.
But it IS stupid!
It’s not stupid to read multiple quotes from your spec saying presets are 10.23
Maybe there is a good reason. And you can explain.
So...Rather than repeatedly telling you the spec you cite contains many
these references to10.23 and having you ignore these quotes
I’ve replaced that post and just copied and pasted from your doc specs itself.
So you can’t dispute it.
Yes you have one sort of reference to 10.22,...But why then does the spec go on
to contradict that quote in numerous other places? Here’s some below:
3.2.1.1 P-Code
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
The PRN P-code for SV ID number i, for i = 1 to 37, is a ranging code, Pi(t), of 7 days in length at a chipping rate of 10.23 Mbps.
3.2.1.3 C/A-Codechip long linear pattern.
The PRN C/A-code for SV ID number i is a Gold code, Gi(t), of 1 millisecond in length at a chipping rate of 1023 kbps. The Gi(t) sequence is a linear pattern generated by the modulo-2 addition of two sub-sequences, G1 and G2i, each of which is a 1023
3.2.1.4 L2 CM-Code (IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks)pattern which is short cycled every count of 10230 chips by resetting with a specified initial state. Assignment of initial states by GPS PRN signal number is given in Table 3-IIa.
The PRN L2 CM-code for SV ID number i is a ranging code, CM,i(t), which is 20 milliseconds in length at a chipping rate of 511.5 kbps. The epochs of the L2 CM-code are synchronized with the X1 epochs of the P-code. The CM,i(t) sequence is a linear
Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
* Short cycled period = 10230 **
3.2.3 L1/L2 Signal Structure
....The L2 CM-code with the 50 sps symbol stream of DC(t) is time-multiplexed with L2 CL- code at a 1023 kHz rate as described in paragraph 3.2.2.
3.3.2 PRN Code CharacteristicsPi(t) and the 1.023 Mbps Gi(t) patterns (referred to as P- and C/A-codes respectively), and for modulo-2 summing these patterns with the LNAV bit train, D(t), which is clocked at 50 bps. The resultant composite bit trains are then used to modulate the
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
The characteristics of the P-, L2 CM-, L2 CL-, and the C/A-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figure 3-1 depicts a simplified block diagram of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps
3.3.2.1 Code Structure
For PRN codes 1 through 37, the Pi(t) pattern (P-code) is generated by the modulo-2 summation of two PRN codes, X1(t) and X2(t - iT), where T is the period of one P-code chip and equals (1.023E7)-1 seconds,
3.3.2.4 L2 CM-/L2 CL-Code Generationpattern is reset after 10230 chips resulting in a code period of 20 milliseconds,
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
Each CM,i(t) pattern (L2 CM-code) and CL,i(t) pattern (L2 CL-code) are generated using the same code generator polynomial each clocked at 511.5 kbps. Each pattern is initiated and reset with a specified initial state (defined in Table 3-II). CM,i(t)
Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 1/3/2024 1:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The clock adjustment for gravity is not about relativity. Only gravity. It was obtained empirically.How the hell could it have been set empirically since the time offset
was preset BEFORE the launch? NTS-2 was the first satellite EVER to be
launched with Cs clocks so there was no other source of empirical data,
either.
And your statement "gravity is not about relativity" is contradictory as
gravity is an effect of general relativity.
The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch.
The two-switch story is a fairy tale.
Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.
Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory.
Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity.
Gravity is not even electromagnetism.
I really can't help you with your confusion.
On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:chip long linear pattern.
On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains >>>>> for relativity?
So you don't agree.
But it IS stupid!
It’s not stupid to read multiple quotes from your spec saying presets are 10.23
Maybe there is a good reason. And you can explain.
So...Rather than repeatedly telling you the spec you cite contains many
these references to10.23 and having you ignore these quotes
I’ve replaced that post and just copied and pasted from your doc specs itself.
So you can’t dispute it.
Yes you have one sort of reference to 10.22,...But why then does the spec go on
to contradict that quote in numerous other places? Here’s some below:
without interpreting their meanings.
Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
3.2.1.1 P-Code
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
The PRN P-code for SV ID number i, for i = 1 to 37, is a ranging code, Pi(t), of 7 days in length at a chipping rate of 10.23 Mbps.
stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.
3.2.1.3 C/A-Code
The PRN C/A-code for SV ID number i is a Gold code, Gi(t), of 1 millisecond in length at a chipping rate of 1023 kbps. The Gi(t) sequence is a linear pattern generated by the modulo-2 addition of two sub-sequences, G1 and G2i, each of which is a 1023
pattern which is short cycled every count of 10230 chips by resetting with a specified initial state. Assignment of initial states by GPS PRN signal number is given in Table 3-IIa.First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
3.2.1.4 L2 CM-Code (IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks)
The PRN L2 CM-code for SV ID number i is a ranging code, CM,i(t), which is 20 milliseconds in length at a chipping rate of 511.5 kbps. The epochs of the L2 CM-code are synchronized with the X1 epochs of the P-code. The CM,i(t) sequence is a linear
t) and the 1.023 Mbps Gi(t) patterns (referred to as P- and C/A-codes respectively), and for modulo-2 summing these patterns with the LNAV bit train, D(t), which is clocked at 50 bps. The resultant composite bit trains are then used to modulate theThat's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
Again, a count. See above.
Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
* Short cycled period = 10230 **
Again on the ground nominal.
3.2.3 L1/L2 Signal Structure
....The L2 CM-code with the 50 sps symbol stream of DC(t) is time-multiplexed with L2 CL- code at a 1023 kHz rate as described in paragraph 3.2.2.
3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
The characteristics of the P-, L2 CM-, L2 CL-, and the C/A-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figure 3-1 depicts a simplified block diagram of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps Pi(
pattern is reset after 10230 chips resulting in a code period of 20 milliseconds,Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.
3.3.2.1 Code StructureA count of seconds.
For PRN codes 1 through 37, the Pi(t) pattern (P-code) is generated by the modulo-2 summation of two PRN codes, X1(t) and X2(t - iT), where T is the period of one P-code chip and equals (1.023E7)-1 seconds,
3.3.2.4 L2 CM-/L2 CL-Code Generation
IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
Each CM,i(t) pattern (L2 CM-code) and CL,i(t) pattern (L2 CL-code) are generated using the same code generator polynomial each clocked at 511.5 kbps. Each pattern is initiated and reset with a specified initial state (defined in Table 3-II). CM,i(t)
Another count.
Nominal again.
Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
"The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
Here you go Volney boy. Seeing as you havent learnt how to google
I did it for you
It says clearly at the top that “ Three signals are transmitted at the moment by GPS “ And then goes on to specify these 3 variations.
One of the three copied below. Additionally it refers to these as SV signals. SV means GPS satelitte. Ask Paul. He just posted a couple days ago
a comment in which he says that SV means....Sat clock. Savvy?
I don’t see how you can assume this refers to anything but the transmission signal or clock frequency of the satelitte.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan#:~:text=The%20PRN%20C%2FA%20Code,1023%20chip%20long%20linear%20pattern.
“ GPS L2 Bandand M-Code were already described shortly in the previous chapter and the properties and parameters are thus similar to those in the L1 band. In addition, for Block IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks of SVs, two additional PRN ranging codes are
GPS is transmitting in the L2 band (1227.60 MHz) a modernized civil signal known as L2C designed specifically to meet commercial needs as it enables the development of dual-frequency solutions; together with the P(Y) Code and the M-Code. The P(Y) Code
L2 CM Code is transmitted in the IIR-M, IIF, III and subsequent blocks. The PRN L2 CM Code for SV number i is a ranging code, which is 20 milliseconds in length at a chipping rate of 511.5 Kbps. The epochs of the L2 CM Code are synchronized with the X1epochs of the P-code. The CM sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count period of ***10,230*** chips by resetting with a particular initial state. “
Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:[bla bla bla]
So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to the Interface _SPECIFICATION_ document:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
"The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10"
"This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
If the satellites were not built according to specification,
they wouldn't work,
Where’s your citation and quote from pre 1977 launch predicting
Total gains of 446ps at 4.12 Earth radius?
Cant find it?
Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?
Of course no relativistic phenomena are apparent to the receiver.
Why should it?
The receiver doesn't measure any frequencies.
The receiver receives two modulated carrier signals,
with information about what the SV-time was when
the signal was sent. With this information from four
satellites, the receiver can calculate its time and position.
Interesting obfuscation . To start with it is clear the sat clock
is preset to 10.23Mz. You can’t ignore the dozens of times this is
stated even in this one doc.
And..Of course no relativistic phenomena would be apparent to the receiver. That’s because the sat signal is swamped by much larger classical Doppler shifting of the signal every day. As you yourself admit elsewhere.
What you also fail to understand is that even if there ARE relativistic clock gains it would make no difference nor be measureable. Because daily Doppler shifting
and any on board time glitches by the atomic clock would make it impossible to seperate out any smaller GR and SR effects . That’s why the clock needs to be corrected
daily.
In fact if you think about it, any satelitte engineer designing the GPS system would have to design in a daily correctable clock to correct all the above non relativistic clock gains/losses. Even if no
Relativistic gains/losses were ever expected.
You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
and how the time is corrected.
https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
t_SV is the time shown by the SV-clock.
t_SV is never corrected while the SV is in service,
and its error Δ@t_SV will typically be several μs.
t_SV is sent from the SV to the receiver together with
a few correctional parameters, the most important of
which is the clock offset a_f0.
The receiver can then calculate the correct system tine t,
that is the time when the signal was sent.
See reference above.
Note that the correctional parameters are measured by
the monitor stations, and uploaded to the SVs when needed,
typically once a day. This is the "daily adjustment" you
mentioned, _but the SV_clock is NOT adjusted_.
Bbecause of the number of bits a_f0 is coded with,
the clock offset must be less that 1 ms, this means
that the SV clock error Δ@t_SV must be less then 1 ms.
If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
the SY wouldn't work.
Bottom line:
The _only_ reason for the GR-correction is to keep the SV clock
correct within 1 ms.
Smart enough to be able to read your NIST specs and see
that it says very clearly numerous times...the sat broadcast f is 10.23Mhz.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:10:32 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
the SY wouldn't work.
I would somewhat disagree with your wording. I would prefer to
state that if the relativistic correction hadn’t been applied,
*then the entire GPS system would be broken from the start.*
People forget that GPS consists both of a Space Segment and a
Control segment. The Space Segment is the constellation of 24
in-service satellites plus spares.
The control segment comprises the Master Control Station at
Schriever AFB, the Alternate Master Control Station at Vandenberg
AFB, and a worldwide network of tracking and monitoring stations
that check on the health of the satellites, precisely monitor
their positions to within centimeters, make sure that the
satellite clocks are all sync’ed up, see to it that the
satellite ephemerides are uploaded with the latest position
corrections, provide the satellites with the latest ionospheric
weather reports and so forth.
To work effectively as a unified system. the Space Segment clocks
and the Control Segment clocks had to all be running on the same
time. Using 1970s technology, The Control Segment simply could not
possibly be expected to manage the Space Segment effectively if
the Space Segment clocks were running 38.6 microseconds per day
fast. All of the clocks in the GPS system needed to be sync’ed
within nanoseconds of each other whether they are in space or on
the ground.
Using modern technology, it is quite conceivable (although rather
stupid) to have the Space Segment clocks running uncorrected, so
that they continuously run further and further out of sync with
ground clocks. All you would need would be to add a extra bits to
af_0 so that you can run the satellites for several years without
overflow. Indeed, that *may* have been how the Galileo designers
originally intended that Galileo should work.
Using 1970s technology, it was a matter of "don't be absurd."
So....You insist above that only a quote that says “The base frequency is 10.23”
will settle the question. How about this compromise:
I’ll accept that the signal frequencies, are neither generated nor broadcast
at 10.23Mhz, if you show me your specific quote from the specs doc that
says “ The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Because although the GR correction formula does predict 5.27e-10.
So does the much simpler classical formula GM/r ÷ c^2 , for
any radius above and including r at earths surface.
Although quite why the arbitrary number 8.9875518e+16 used in both
formula (calculated from c^2 and in an unspecified unit of m^2/s^2) gives the correct
offset is a mystery to me.
Because 5.27e-10, regardless of which formula, has nothing
to do with frequency or time.
It’s just the force of gravity, potential if you insist,
So dividing GM/ r
into any amount will give a different “offset”
GM/r ÷ 1/2(8.9875518e+16 )= 1.05522118e-9 offset.
In fact it was necessary to correct from the relativistic prediction to the empirically found frequency: "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal
was offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer {4) ." - "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE"
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
page 16:
"At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
. . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."
The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².
page 17:
"When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
changed to reflect the correct calculation'."
Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
is slightly different from the correct value +446.47E-12.
Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.
I hear you saying, as I take your meaning, that the value predicted by relativity was accurate enough not to require correction.
However, two questions;
1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
the SV is corrected:
https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
t_SV is the time shown by the SV-clock.
t_SV is never corrected while the SV is in service,
and its error Δt_SV will typically be several μs.
t_SV is sent from the SV to the receiver together with
a few correctional parameters, the most important of
which is the clock offset a_f0.
The receiver can then calculate the correct system tine t,
that is the time when the signal was sent.
See reference above.
Note that the correctional parameters are measured by
the monitor stations, and uploaded to the SVs when needed,
typically once a day. This is the "daily adjustment" you
mentioned, _but the SV_clock is NOT adjusted_.
Bbecause of the number of bits a_f0 is coded with,
the clock offset must be less that 1 ms, this means
that the SV clock error Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms.
If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
the SY wouldn't work.
Bottom line:
The _only_ reason for the GR-correction is to keep the SV clock
correct within 1 ms.
1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
page 16:
"At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
. . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."
The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².
page 17:
"When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
changed to reflect the correct calculation'."
Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
is slightly different from the correct value -446.47E-12.
Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.
In fact it was necessary to correct from the relativistic prediction to the empirically found frequency: "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal
was offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer {4) ." - "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE"
So assuming you are correct as you are a retired GPS engineer and know every detail of Every schematic and every table in the spec then maybe you could tell me
why all the bother is made to code, chip, and generate a 10.23 Mhz signal
on board the SV...to only then convert it down to a preset 10.22Mhz. Before its
broadcast to the ground receiver?
Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?
From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever getsthese parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
But if the chipped 10.23 SV clock is “offset” to 10.22Mhz in the SV before broadcast to ground then the offset that is modulated onto the carrier wave STILL HAS THE 10.23Mhz chip rate data !!
So all the ground receiver really gets is a carrier wave with the 10.23 Mhz chip rate data!
And
No time dilation occurs because the SV clock is at 10.23Mhz.
And the ground recieves a 10.23 chip rate modulated onto the carrier wave.
Regardless of whether the data is compressed onto a 10.22 signal on the SV.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:and M-Code were already described shortly in the previous chapter and the properties and parameters are thus similar to those in the L1 band. In addition, for Block IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks of SVs, two additional PRN ranging codes are
On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
Nominal again.
For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
"The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
Here you go Volney boy. Seeing as you havent learnt how to google
I did it for you
It says clearly at the top that “ Three signals are transmitted at the
moment by GPS “ And then goes on to specify these 3 variations.
One of the three copied below. Additionally it refers to these as SV signals.
SV means GPS satelitte. Ask Paul. He just posted a couple days ago
a comment in which he says that SV means....Sat clock. Savvy?
I don’t see how you can assume this refers to anything but the transmission
signal or clock frequency of the satelitte.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan#:~:text=The%20PRN%20C%2FA%20Code,1023%20chip%20long%20linear%20pattern.
“ GPS L2 Band
GPS is transmitting in the L2 band (1227.60 MHz) a modernized civil signal known as L2C designed specifically to meet commercial needs as it enables the development of dual-frequency solutions; together with the P(Y) Code and the M-Code. The P(Y) Code
X1 epochs of the P-code. The CM sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count period of ***10,230*** chips by resetting with a particular initial state. “L2 CM Code is transmitted in the IIR-M, IIF, III and subsequent blocks. The PRN L2 CM Code for SV number i is a ranging code, which is 20 milliseconds in length at a chipping rate of 511.5 Kbps. The epochs of the L2 CM Code are synchronized with the
Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
I think that it just means the frequency would be 10.2299 on Earth but is 10.23 in space. Wozniak says, "Can be preset. Afterf getting on the orbit it is 10.23, as measured.
Good bye, The Shit. "
On Friday 5 January 2024 at 16:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:
From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of
gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever
Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work.
At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
I need to find out how the SV clocks and signal work. Best way to learn
is try to summarise what I know and ask the experts to clarify or correct. And it worked. I wouldnt have got your info without asking. And thanks for that info incidentally.
There is no
"offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
there is 9192631774.1 ÷ 10230000 = 898.595481339 Cs cycles,
I don’t quite understand this bit.
You seem to suggest here that the caesium atoms and a caesium clocks frequency is at 9192631774.1 That’s not what I read.
*Every source* I read puts the caesium atoms frequency and a caesium clocks frequency at 9102631770.
Heres wiki:
“By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz.”
So how do they get the atoms frequency to change from 9192631770 to 9102631774.1
Anyways, if I understand you correctly the chip rate is never at
10.23. Always at 10.22.
But why then would the spec always refer to it as being 10.23 if it never was?
If the 10.22 chip rate is binned at 20ms or 1.5 s in the SV before transmission
That doesn’t make sense either. Because if there is a speeding up of the frequency
during transmission those bins would have to change length too.
Seeing
as the SV only bins a specific amount of 10.22 chips per bin.
How does that work. I would have thought you would end up with bins
being shorter in time length on arrival to accomadate a higher
frequency offset and thus over even just minutes
one would get a problem where the sat sends x amount of bins in
a set time length And the ground gets x amount of bins in
a shorter amount of time. If this were the case the receiver
would run out of bins to receive because each bins time length
was shorter at receiver then it was at SV before it was transmitted.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:And why do you claim that silliness? And do you have any evidence of it?
On 1/3/2024 1:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The clock adjustment for gravity is not about relativity. Only gravity. It was obtained empirically.How the hell could it have been set empirically since the time offset
was preset BEFORE the launch? NTS-2 was the first satellite EVER to be >>>> launched with Cs clocks so there was no other source of empirical data, >>>> either.
And your statement "gravity is not about relativity" is contradictory as >>>> gravity is an effect of general relativity.
The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch.
I didn't think so.
Also first you said it was preset empirically (with no data to set it
to) and now you claim it was not preset at all?
The two-switch story is a fairy tale.Again why do you claim that? Evidence? Again, I didn't think so. And why
is the switch right in the paper
And general relativity does just that.
Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.
Why do you say that? It meets all the requirements of scientific theories. >>> Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity.
Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory.
Why "pretends"? It gives a logical, scientific description and explanation. >>> Gravity is not even electromagnetism.
Of course not. Just like GR says it has nothing to do with electromagnetism. >>>
I really can't help you with your confusion.
It is you who is confused, thinking things like GR says gravity is
electromagnetism, strange beliefs about NTS-2, don't understand what a
theory is in science, etc.
1. Anderson above (and this: "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS
NTS-2 SATELLITE) said the prediction was not more than 1% off.
2. Therefore, it was not exact.
3. the clock rate (frequency) must be exact for the GPS to function.
4. Relativity did not predict The exact amount (this is what you haven't gotten).
5. Therefore, the synthesizer must have adjusted it from the relativity prediction to the exact amount.
6. Above are the quotes from Essen saying it is not a scientific theory. You are welcome to read his papers criticizing relativity.
7. According to Essen and thousands of other scientists you have not studied, it doesn't give a logical explanation but a self-contradictory one.
Yes Paul. I’ve read your rants already. And read the spec which says there is a
carrier etc offset to 10.22999 . A supposed offset which incidentally can also
be explained just as well by a classical non relativistic model using GM/r ÷ f
Nonetheless the rest of your spec clearly says the nominal SV signal, frequency, clock
chip rates etc on the sat are set at 10.23. You can’t deny that.
So assuming you are correct as you are a retired GPS engineer and know every detail of Every schematic and every table in the spec then maybe you could tell me
why all the bother is made to code, chip, and generate a 10.23 Mhz signal
on board the SV...to only then convert it down to a preset 10.22Mhz. Before its
broadcast to the ground receiver?
Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?
On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
Again, neither. Try again.
I think that it just means the frequency would be 10.2299 on Earth but
is 10.23 in space. Wozniak says, "Can be preset. Afterf getting on the
orbit it is 10.23, as measured.
Good bye, The Shit. "
Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to 10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:24:23 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
Yes Paul. I’ve read your rants already. And read the spec which says there is a
carrier etc offset to 10.22999 . A supposed offset which incidentally can also
be explained just as well by a classical non relativistic model using GM/r ÷ f
There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.
Then, there was no Newtonian prediction for the GPS clock. How does gravity affect the rate of an atomic clock? If gravity affects it, then Newtonian would have an exlanation. How does the relativistic explanation compare?
An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
as the rate of a clock at infinity.
The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
We consult Ashby:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
see equation (18) page 11.
dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
p = 43082.04525 s
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m
Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
This means that the clock will run fast relative
to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
In the GPS specification the correction is set to
Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?
Of course that's what is done.
The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
It is not 'converted' from anything else.
The frequencies of the carriers are derived from f₀:
L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz
L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6000005480864 Mhz
as measured by a local SI-clock.
Measured by local UTC-clocks the frequencies are:
f₀ = 10.23 MHz,
L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.42 MHz and L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6 MHz.
Chew on that! :-D
SI-clock = a clock with time unit seconds as defined by SI.
UTC-clock = a clock showing UTC
On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined
Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen >>> I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change
A very peculiar question.
The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
hadn't done what it did! :-D
It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic?
On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.
If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
(It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
So to answer your questions:
1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
Which confirms my statement:
"Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document."
2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.A very peculiar question.
The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
hadn't done what it did! :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because,
Thank you for explaining what Newtonian mode is. Not having heard that, I thought the reasonable supposition was that an honest comparison would be made between the Newtonian gravitational effect on atomic clocks and the relativistic. Most of theeffect on the atomic clocks is gravitational.
In fact, all of it is since there is no time dilation.
That is just read into the empirical data.
The Schwartzschild metric is about the fiction of curved space, which is the reification fallacy; therefore, it explains nothing. The Schwarzschild Metric tells us the amount of time dilation. Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
That is just read into the empirical data.
And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?
[bla bla not addressing the unavailability of empirical data]
You could listen better instead of insulting people.
It refers to the interpretation of part of the rate change as having been caused by SR that is not caused by SR.
All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 2:51:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 1/8/2024 4:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
the whole difference is due to gravity.All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?
It's not caused by gravitational force that could affect a clock. It is
caused by the Schwarzschild metric, which is proportional to the
gravitational potential in the weak field. The motion of the satellites
reduce the difference from 45µS/day to 38µS/day.
Volney, you never listened even when I said I was taking about something else! I'm talking about the fact that the total difference in the clock rate in orbit is partly attributed to SR and part to GR. The point was that there is no SR time dilation so
38 is gravity and there is no 45 except in the imagination of relativists.
If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:No clock runs fast. Each clock ticks at its normal rate of 1 second per
On 1/8/2024 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.
Except it has two components, one is the Schwarzschild metric from the
orbital height and the other the speed of the satellite in its orbit.
And again, the Schwarzschild metric is based on the gravitational
potential, not on the gravitational force.
Then, you must be able to explain what the physical cause is of the atomic clock moving fast.
What effect does the gravitational potential have on the gas or laser beams in the clock?
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
All these experiments confirm the predictions of
the Schwartzschild metric:
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(see experiment on pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
And the satellite navigation systems
GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:38:59 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
The difference is 19.235 microseconds
Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
(If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
https://paulba.no/
How can it fail to explain it? Relativity has not even explained the difference in clock rates at all.
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:18:42 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Depends on which Newton formula you use.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:38:59 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:No theory "Explains" anything.
Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
The difference is 19.235 microseconds
Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
(If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
https://paulba.no/
How can it fail to explain it? Relativity has not even explained the difference in clock rates at all.
Neither Newton nor GR "explain" gravitation, they postulate it.
All a theory of physics can do is to predict what will be
measured in experiments.
This is Newtonian physics:
---------------------------
1. Newtons laws of motion. 2. law: F = dp/dt
2. Newtons law of gravitation: F = GMm/r²
3. Galilean relativity.
t' = t
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
Please show what this theory will predict for the following
experiment:
A clock is in circular orbit with radius 26561763 metres,
and the orbital period measured by clocks on the ground
is 43082.045250000 seconds. What is the orbital period
measured by the orbiting clock?
We know that GR correctly predicts that the orbiting clock
will measure the orbital period to be 43082.045269235 seconds.
Will Newton predict the same?
If you use Newton’s potential, as Relativity does, then yes Newton
can predict the clock gains with an accuracy almost as good
as Relativity.
And from that I suppose one can predict
the orbital period.
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 12:39:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Yes. But asking for the facts isn’t.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.
All these experiments confirm the predictions ofAn illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
the Schwartzschild metric:
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(see experiment on pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
And the satellite navigation systems
GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.
No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.
A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.
If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
is confirmed (NOT proven).
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is falsified.
It is a fact that predictions of GR for
the experiments above are in accordance with
the measurements.
So it is PROVEN that GR gives the correct predictions
for those particular experiments, and for the satellite
navigation systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou.
Denying facts is irrational behaviour!
It’s still not clear where the original prediction for a total offset of 4.1
for the frequency C-133 (9192631770) comes from. The earliest I can
find is GM/r ÷ c^2.
And 1/2 v^2. But neither specifically state exact
predicted amounts for clock gains/losses. Just ratios of gains vs
radius using Newtonian potential.
Because its not clear if GR did predict a 9192631774.1 total offset for r4.12 As I can’t find any actual prediction of this 4.1 frequency offset until after 1977.
At which point the clock gain had already been measured by the first
GPS satelitte.
And as Ashby says in his paper the theorists and GPS engineers were
not sure what the magnitude would be before launch.
Why would
Ashby the expert, if anyone is, say this if it wasn’t true?
So my question is ..Was an exact offset of 4.1 for C-133 preset in the
first GPS sat?
Or was the offset “switch” variable?
Because the various literature
on the first test indicates the ground engineers were able to monitor
the daily offset over weeks *before* switching on.
So it looks they
measured the offset before they knew it’s exact magnitude.
So my question is: Had the option to *vary* the switchs daily offset magnitude been built into the first satelitte once they knew the exact magnitude of the clock gains from a few weeks observation?
Because
if Ashby was correct and no exact magnitude was ever even predicted
....would any sane NASA engineer have sent up a test satelitte with
an offset switch of an exact amount attached if they didn’t
know how much offset to set the switch to was known?
Is there any cited reference on this?
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 12:39:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.
All these experiments confirm the predictions ofAn illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
the Schwartzschild metric:
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(see experiment on pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
And the satellite navigation systems
GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.
No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.
A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.
If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
is confirmed (NOT proven).
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is falsified.
It is a fact that predictions of GR for
the experiments above are in accordance with
the measurements.
So it is PROVEN that GR gives the correct predictions
for those particular experiments, and for the satellite
navigation systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou.
Denying facts is irrational behaviour!
Yes. But asking for the facts isn’t.
Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency?
I was wondering if it was
because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:
GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
c^2 = 8.9875518e+16
47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770= 0.005154066
47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543 = 4.63142042086
4.63142042086 ÷ 0.005154066= 898.59548187
1 ÷ 0.005154066= 194.021574423
898.495561647 ÷ 194.021574423= 4.63090542543
10230000 × 898.59548134 = 9192631774.1
898.59548134 × 10229999.9954 =9192631770
9192631770 ÷ 10229999.9954326= 898.59548134
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:39:08 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.
It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.
No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.
A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.
If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
is confirmed (NOT proven).
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is falsified.
Two typical defense tactics of relativists are to talk down to their opponents and to demand unnecessarily precise language.
Everyone knows your points, and I read Karl Popper long ago.
Everyone knows that relativity asserts that it is perfectly mathematically consistent. Many excellent scientists have shown this is not true.
In so far as the math at times is consistent, the physics is not.
It is irrational behavior to fail to answer my most crucial point.
You have not conceded that an illogical theory does not make verifiable predictions.
An illogical theory cannot be verified/confirmed because it does not make unambiguous predictions.
Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:42:58 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/9/2024 9:28 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:18:42 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Depends on which Newton formula you use.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:38:59 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:No theory "Explains" anything.
Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
The difference is 19.235 microseconds
Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
(If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
https://paulba.no/
How can it fail to explain it? Relativity has not even explained the difference in clock rates at all.
Neither Newton nor GR "explain" gravitation, they postulate it.
All a theory of physics can do is to predict what will be
measured in experiments.
This is Newtonian physics:
---------------------------
1. Newtons laws of motion. 2. law: F = dp/dt
2. Newtons law of gravitation: F = GMm/r²
3. Galilean relativity.
t' = t
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
Please show what this theory will predict for the following
experiment:
A clock is in circular orbit with radius 26561763 metres,
and the orbital period measured by clocks on the ground
is 43082.045250000 seconds. What is the orbital period
measured by the orbiting clock?
We know that GR correctly predicts that the orbiting clock
will measure the orbital period to be 43082.045269235 seconds.
Will Newton predict the same?
formula for any situation.
Yes. It’s called potential and it’s GM/r. And it works. Otherwise relativity
wouldn’t have borrowed it.
If you use Newton’s potential, as Relativity does, then yes Newton
can predict the clock gains with an accuracy almost as good
as Relativity.
Umm, no. Newtonian time is the same everywhere. Remember the GalileanYes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
transform where t' = t?
clock gains with resonance using GM/r.
Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except
to calculate potential energy due to gravity.
Newton didn’t. But classical physics does. And it works.
Albeit with error margins of 0.00021 vs Relativity’s 0.0001.
Although fact is if it’s more accurate,I don’t see why GM/r ÷ c^2
cant be used by a classical model.
After all c^2 is just a number
and GM/r is “Newtonian”
And from that I suppose one can predictWith Newtonian physics, if the ground time is 43082.045250000 seconds,
the orbital period.
then the satellite time is also 43082.045250000 seconds. Remember, t'=t.
So Newtonian physics gives the wrong answer.
You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:42:58 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 1/9/2024 9:28 AM, Lou wrote:
And from that I suppose one can predict
the orbital period.
With Newtonian physics, if the ground time is 43082.045250000 seconds,
then the satellite time is also 43082.045250000 seconds. Remember, t'=t.
So Newtonian physics gives the wrong answer.
To equate the functioning of the clock with time is not correct.
Claiming that Newton can't predict the clock's rate because Newton does not have variable time is obvious nonsense.
Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
Which using average 4.12 and assuming radius r is 6371000m
gives 47379430.8842
At that point divide by whatever you feel like. GR divides
into fantasy number 8.9875518e+16 for some unknown bizarre reason
Which is why I question all the assumptions of 5.27e-10
being used as a frequency ratio 1.000000000527 to calculate
clock gains for GR.
How on earth do you guys figure that 1/89875518000000000
of 47379430.8842 has anything to do with frequency ratios?
All 5.27e-10 is ...is 1/89875518000000000 of the potential at
earth orbit 4.12. Your formula 1.000000000527 is a fantasy number.
It should have WAY more zeros if 5.27e-10 is just
1/89875518000000000 of GM/r4.12
That’s why I question the whole pretext of observed clock gains
matching predictions by GR.
You faked the formula 1.000000000527 to match the observations.
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:clocks.
On 1/9/2024 4:44 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:42:58 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:"Can't predict the clock's rate" is wrong. Newtonian physics predicts no
On 1/9/2024 9:28 AM, Lou wrote:
And from that I suppose one can predict
the orbital period.
With Newtonian physics, if the ground time is 43082.045250000 seconds, >>>> then the satellite time is also 43082.045250000 seconds. Remember, t'=t. >>>> So Newtonian physics gives the wrong answer.
To equate the functioning of the clock with time is not correct.
Claiming that Newton can't predict the clock's rate because Newton does not have variable time is obvious nonsense.
effect on the clock rate because all clocks in the universe tick the
same and nothing affects them. In Newtonian physics the ground time and
satellite time are both 43082.045250000 seconds (no change, t'=t), but
this is not what is measured.
Newton does not say all clocks work the same under any conditions.
"If time was the same
everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
the same everywhere! t'=t." Yes, well try moving a pendulum to a different latitude without changing its length. It will run at a different rate yet time is the same. It is one one of the dumbest parts of relativity to equate time and the readings of
As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 21:18:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.01.2024 11:21, skrev Lou:
A clock stationary in the ECI frame at a distance r' fromDen 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
the center of the Earth with radius r would run at a rate
relative to a clock on the geoid:
dτ/dt ≈ 1 + (GM/r - GM/r')/c²
So according to you: (GM/r - GM/r') = GM/(r-r') :-D
'nuff said.
Not sure how you figure I’m wrong. To start with relativity uses
something very similar. But let me do my formulas calculation for you.
(GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
(GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
Does that sound incorrect to you?
How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 17:35:14 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/9/2024 10:08 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:42:58 UTC, Volney wrote:
You forgot. A Classical model doesn’t have time change.Your second sentence contradicts the first. If time was the sameUmm, no. Newtonian time is the same everywhere. Remember the GalileanYes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
transform where t' = t?
clock gains with resonance using GM/r.
everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
the same everywhere! t'=t.
It
has harmonic oscillators resonating at higher frequencies at
lower gravitational fields.
As observed.
Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except >>>> to calculate potential energy due to gravity.
Newton didn’t. But classical physics does. And it works.
Albeit with error margins of 0.00021 vs Relativity’s 0.0001.
What SI unit is it?After all c^2 is just a numberNo, it is not. It has dimensionality of length²/time².
And from that I suppose one can predictWith Newtonian physics, if the ground time is 43082.045250000 seconds, >>>> then the satellite time is also 43082.045250000 seconds. Remember, t'=t. >>
the orbital period.
So Newtonian physics gives the wrong answer.
You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats >>> faster at higher altitudes.
No, the satellite clocks are designed to tick at the correct rate and
not to be affected by external events. That's why they are so accurate,
they can't be affected by external things like a ground level Cs clock
being affected by the gravity of a fat scientist walking by it. Besides,
any "resonant frequency" effects would be proportional to force, which
varies as 1/r², but the altitude effect varies at 1/r. And the clocks
are in freefall, so there is no force or 1/r² effect on them. Newtonian
physics nothing is affected proportional to 1/r other than the potential
energy of a mass.
A clock at the top of Everest also has clock gains under classical theory using
GM/r. Yet it’s not in free fall.
On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 00:43:42 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/10/2024 4:42 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 21:18:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.01.2024 11:21, skrev Lou:
A clock stationary in the ECI frame at a distance r' fromDen 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
the center of the Earth with radius r would run at a rate
relative to a clock on the geoid:
dτ/dt ≈ 1 + (GM/r - GM/r')/c²
So according to you: (GM/r - GM/r') = GM/(r-r') :-D
'nuff said.
Hahahaha!!!!!
Not sure how you figure I’m wrong. To start with relativity uses
something very similar. But let me do my formulas calculation for you.
(GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
(GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
Does that sound incorrect to you?
Not since you fixed your mistake! Remember you wrote:
Your GM/(r-r') is wrong.How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
Really?
5.2716726e-10 is not the correct answer? It looks exactly the same as the prediction from GR. Are you finally admitting GR is wrong?
GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
(GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 21:18:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.01.2024 11:21, skrev Lou:
Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
A clock stationary in the ECI frame at a distance r' from
the center of the Earth with radius r would run at a rate
relative to a clock on the geoid:
dτ/dt ≈ 1 + (GM/r - GM/r')/c²
So according to you: (GM/r - GM/r') = GM/(r-r') :-D
Not sure how you figure I’m wrong. To start with relativity uses
something very similar. But let me do my formulas calculation for you.
(GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
(GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
Does that sound incorrect to you?
Which using average 4.12 and assuming radius r is 6371000m
gives 47379430.8842
At that point divide by whatever you feel like. GR divides
into fantasy number 8.9875518e+16 for some unknown bizarre reason
I have shown you this before, SO READ IT!
Yes you showed me more than a month ago. And it’s still wrong.
Because you still have yet to explain your fantasy as to how dividing GM/r into 89875518000000000 pieces has anything to do
with -10, frequencies or ratios of frequencies.
You just arbitrarily pretended you could use 1/ 89875518000000000
of GM/r in a formula with just nine zeros and multiply 10229999.9954326
with it. You forgot a bunch numbers. Your 5.27 should be 1.0000000000000527 Not 1.000000000527
But because the proper number of zeros doesn’t work...you faked it.
An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
as the rate of a clock at infinity.
The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
We consult Ashby:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
see equation (18) page 11.
dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
p = 43082.04525 s
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 26561763 m
Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
This means that the clock will run fast relative
to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
In the GPS specification the correction is set to
Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
Must be necromancy, don't you think?
BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert.Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
Interpretations of experiments are not facts. Failure to question factoids is imbecilic.
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:pendulum clock is used in space?
On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.
So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a
It is amusing that you exhibit no comprehension of the point plainly stated: How can relativity predict twice Newtonian in the eclipse and once Newtonian in Pound & Rebka if it makes an unambiguous prediction? The experimental results are contradictory.Then, do they verify Newton or Einstein? Why don't you just relinquish P&R?
Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.
Volney wrote:
On 1/11/2024 7:11 AM, Lou wrote: Really?
5.2716726e-10 is not the correct answer? It looks exactly the same as
the prediction from GR. Are 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗥 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴?
GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
Again,
eW91ciBPUklHSU5BTCBjbGFpbSwgR00vKHItcicpIGlzIHdyb25nISBQYXVsIGNhdWdodCB5b3UsIGFuZCBpbg==
your reply to him,IHlvdSBjb3JyZWN0ZWQgeW91ciBtaXN0YWtlIGJ5IHdyaXRpbmcgKEdNL3IpLShHTS9y4oCZKS4=
I am laughing at your ORIGINAL mistake!U2xvcHB5LCBzbG9wcHksIHNsb3BweQ==!!
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:21:28 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 18:50:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,I didn’t see much at that link of any help. But it’s an interesting
it is also Rubidium with frequency 6834682610.904 Hz.
So the frequency synthesiser has to be different if it is
Rb oscillator than a Cs oscillator.
https://www.electricity-magnetism.org/frequency-synthesizers/
Note that in a frequency synthesiser the output frequency
is N/M x reference_frequency where N and M are integers.
formula you mention above. But I don’t understand the terms in it.
So can I get a clarification . What is ‘reference’ frequency in your
N/M x ref frequency. Is that 9192631770?
And what integers are N and M ?
Paul presents a frequency synthesizer diagram that would have
been somewhat beyond state-of-the-art in the 1970s, when the
first GPS satellites were flown. In particular, the N and M
counters were assembled using 7400 series TTL logic hard-wired on
printed circuit boards and were absolutely *NOT* programmable.
TTL logic is not capable of handling gigahertz frequencies. The
output frequencies of the cesium or rubidium atomic frequency
standards first needed to be brought down using high-speed ECL
prescalers to something below, say, 100 MHz. So let us assume a
128x prescaler. The input frequency from a CAFS would therefore
be 71.817435703125 MHz, while the input frequency from a RAFS
would be 53.3959578976875 MHz.
If we assume 24 bit counters, then to get from 71.817435703125 MHz
to 10.23 MHz you need N=2104729 and M=14775781
To get from 71.817435703125 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
N=1660979 and M=11660533
To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.23 MHz you need N=705947
and M=3684723
To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
N=2784179 and M=14532151
Simple?
On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity since both the
clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.
I thought GR was measuring the gravitational effects.
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a
On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation": "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be
Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
on the Pound-Rebka experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
of which my authorship stands at 86%:
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship
The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.
On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 00:16:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/10/2024 4:01 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 17:35:14 UTC, Volney wrote:I assume you mean Newtonian physics doesn't because classical GR
On 1/9/2024 10:08 AM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:42:58 UTC, Volney wrote:
You forgot. A Classical model doesn’t have time change.Your second sentence contradicts the first. If time was the sameUmm, no. Newtonian time is the same everywhere. Remember the Galilean >>>>>> transform where t' = t?Yes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
clock gains with resonance using GM/r.
everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is >>>> the same everywhere! t'=t.
certainly does.
Classical GR? Since when does classical physics use imaginary spacetime
and time travelling twins!! :D
Show me the classical (non relativistic ) formula for modellingItExcept that would be proportional to the gravitational force or
has harmonic oscillators resonating at higher frequencies at
lower gravitational fields.
proportional to 1/r² while the weak field time dilation is proportional
to 1/r. As you have been told REPEATEDLY. Did you forget or are you
really stooopid?
resonant frequencies at different altitudes that doesn’t use r.
As observed.
Observed to be proportional to 1/r, esp. as other sat navigation systems
in different orbits (GALILEO, GLONASS, BEIDOU etc.) show.
Exactly. And modelled proportional to r to a great accuracy by
using the simple non relativistic formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f
Newton didn’t. But classical physics does. And it works.
Newtonian physics only uses it for potential energy per unit mass.
Albeit with error margins of 0.00021 vs Relativity’s 0.0001.
Obviously misapplied Newtonian physics is wrong.
What SI unit is it?After all c^2 is just a numberNo, it is not. It has dimensionality of length²/time².
Can't you read? Length²/time² or in SI, meters²/seconds².
So meters²/seconds² is what in the formula..acceleration?
So it has a force on it, yet it still works correctly, showing how aYou forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats >>>>> faster at higher altitudes.
No, the satellite clocks are designed to tick at the correct rate and
not to be affected by external events. That's why they are so accurate, >>>> they can't be affected by external things like a ground level Cs clock >>>> being affected by the gravity of a fat scientist walking by it. Besides, >>>> any "resonant frequency" effects would be proportional to force, which >>>> varies as 1/r², but the altitude effect varies at 1/r. And the clocks >>>> are in freefall, so there is no force or 1/r² effect on them. Newtonian >>>> physics nothing is affected proportional to 1/r other than the potential >>>> energy of a mass.
A clock at the top of Everest also has clock gains under classical theory using
GM/r. Yet it’s not in free fall.
properly operating clock works correctly in freefall or not in freefall.
The Schwarzschild metric still applies, of course.
Yes and it also resonates at a higher frequency. And predicted as well
by the classical resonance formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f.
Although you’ll have to be careful when you ask them. They get
really touchy when you point out that their “spacey metric” term or whatever
they call it is actually just force of gravity by another name.
Anyways the fact is harmonic oscillators
have been observed to resonate at
higher frequencies when less force is exerted on them
and this effect
has been well understood for centuries I believe.
On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 21:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/10/2024 8:03 PM, Lou wrote:
Show me the classical (non relativistic ) formula for modelling
resonant frequencies at different altitudes that doesn’t use r.
Sorry, but anything that involves gravitational force such as your
defective clock components that depends on variable "resonances" involve
effects proportional to the force, or proportional to 1/r²
But GR involves gravitational force
and only uses r.
Oh I forgot...we’re not supposed to point out that Einstein pretended gravity didn’t exist and called gravity by a different name...
spacetime or metric or magic goblins or whatever
Smart move. That way you can use r to model gravity effects. And pretend
you weren’t using r to model gravity effects.
Amazing isn’t it. A simple formula anyone can work out.As observed.
Observed to be proportional to 1/r, esp. as other sat navigation systems >>>> in different orbits (GALILEO, GLONASS, BEIDOU etc.) show.
Exactly. And modelled proportional to r to a great accuracy by
using the simple non relativistic formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f
That formula, if you replace the incorrect "f" (some frequency) with c²
is the general relativity Schwarzschild metric.
And you don’t need to know a jot of relativity to “stumble” across it. I found it by simply using GM / r and calculating it for every radius including 4.12. Put them into a table of data and noticed that the
larger r was... the smaller GM/r was. 1/2,1,3,1/4 etc.
All I did then was experiment and first divide into 9192631770.
Then 10.23Mhz and finally c^2.
Newton didn’t. But classical physics does.
That is a miswritten version of relativity's Schwarzschild metric,No he didn’t. His was GM/rc^2. And it doesn’t give 5.27e-10
GM/rc². Again, congratulations for stumbling across the metric, but
Schwarzschild beat you to it by more than 100 years.
Nothing like it.
You relativist made up your latest “correct “ formula to try to
retrodict relativity into the 442 ms/day observed by the first GpS test.
You had no idea before 1977 what the clock gain would be for r4.12
...until the first GPS told you how much.
Although you’ll have to be careful when you ask them. They get
really touchy when you point out that their “spacey metric” term or whatever
they call it is actually just force of gravity by another name.
And again, I must conclude you are really, really stooopid for repeating
that despite repeated correction. I'll mention YET AGAIN that the
Schwarzschild metric varies as 1/r while force/acceleration of gravity
varies as 1/r².
Anyways the fact is harmonic oscillators
...which would vary as 1/r²...
Incorrect. GPS has proved that harmonic oscillators will resonate
at different frequencies relative to r,
On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
waves are received on the ground.
How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?
--
Rich
On Sunday 14 January 2024 at 03:41:54 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/13/2024 5:23 PM, RichD wrote:
On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:The Fe-57 atoms used in Pound-Rebka have a very, Very, VERY narrow
Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
waves are received on the ground.
How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?
--
Rich
frequency absorption band, and yes, it has to be correct to about 1 part
in 10^12 or so. This is the same frequency it emits. The experiment uses
this to detect how GR blueshift/redshift and Doppler shift affects the
absorption.
Ignore Volney. He’s trying to pretend that a narrow frequency absorption band
means that somehow a very small frequency offset from classical Doppler shifting cannot explain the data. Talk about ridiculous logic based on fantasy
assumptions backed by zero science.
Although this 1+1=3 logic from relativists is predictable.
Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a good example of how facism can take many guises.
On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
waves are received on the ground.
On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic CapaseHomolog wrote:
I was describing a situation where source and observer
are a fixed distance apart.
After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
...and so on and so forth.
It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically out of nowhere.
Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:15:57 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:that.
On 1/12/2024 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer >>>> really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity since both the >>>> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.
I thought GR was measuring the gravitational effects.
GR is mass warping spacetime. In GR gravity is not a force, it is the
effect of objects following geodesics in warped spacetime which look
curved so look like a force to us.
You really should learn GR before declaring it wrong.
Volney, have you heard of disagreeing? I obviously know that yet I still disagree. You are just one of the faithful misled by the pseudoscience of relativity. Relativity doesn't cause anything and everyone here has been trying to help you understand
On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Let's make a thought experiment
taken from the real world:
At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
Please answer:
!! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.
Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
question prove?
That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?
How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?Let me guess..umm ....
How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
How close was I ?
And more importantly what’s your point?
On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:30:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Let's make a thought experiment
taken from the real world:
At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC) >>>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).
I’m not sure where you get 1 + 5.3915E-10. I get 5.27e-10
It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
So clock A advances during one rotation:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?
I’m not doing the maths here so I’ll take your word on the numbers
(I’m assuming you are ignoring the velocity component. )
After all if B ticks faster than A then it will get more ticks
per day. But you ignore an important fact. In a *classical model*
Both days are the same length in time . But clock B divides
24 hours into more ticks per day.
But both still agree on the length of the day. Presumably that’s
what a divisor does in an atomic clock.
The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
f₁ = 10 GHz.
During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles
The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.
Well technically it can’t because B isn’t in its line of site for 1/2 the day.
Also there is Doppler shifting but I assume we ignore all that.
So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
527 actually, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying is A receives
a higher frequency of ticks from B than A’s own clock under
both models ignoring other effects.
Since you not are stupid, you will now understand that
a logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
different theoretical reasons.
This is my point:
Since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
factor (1 + δ).
If your calculations say they are the same and we ignore any other Effects like
v or Doppler or oblateness then I’ll take your word for it.
What’s your point?
On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.01.2024 21:12, skrev Lou:
I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
different theoretical reasons.
You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.
In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical model Clock gains are modelled using resonance.
You forgot. In a classical model....Satelittes and ground clocks do not have different lengths of days.
No gravitational
blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time.
I understand you clearly. You think that a classical model incorporates Relativity.
It doesn’t.
On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.
In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical model Clock gains are modelled using resonance. No gravitational
blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time.
Just the resonant frequencies of the atoms varies with altitude.
On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 13:48:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.01.2024 00:14, skrev Lou:I don’t agree at all. In a classical model a second up there is the same time
On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Since you don't even try to give a rational reason for why
You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.
In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical >>> model Clock gains are modelled using resonance. No gravitational
blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time. >>> Just the resonant frequencies of the atoms varies with altitude.
the consequence of the fact that a clock runs fast depend
on the theory that predicts that the clock runs fast,
let's start again and take it step by step.
Please give yourself a chance and think before you respond.
I will use the example with a geostationary satellite
because that's the only way an observer on the ground
can have a satellite continuously in sight.
So we have an observer with clock A at equator at longitude 0⁰,
and a geostationary satellite with clock B at longitude 0⁰.
This means that the satellite always will be at the zenith
as viewed from the observer on the ground.
Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
This means that clock A will measure the duration one rotation of
the Earth to be:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
We agree that clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10)
relative to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
If you don't agree in everything so far, we stop here.
======================================================
as a second down here. The only thing that happens is up there every second the caesium atoms beat slightly faster due to atomic resonance responding
to lesser G force. (GM/r) As I’ve repeatedly said. But the divisor in the sat
compensate by counting 9192631774.1 beats a second.
Your calculation above is incorrect. You have time passing at a different rate up there. That’s relativity. Not classical theory.
Correct your above calculation so both sat and ground clock are both counting the
same amount of seconds every second. And then maybe I’ll talk.
The geostationary satellite is rotating once per orbit
so it always face the same side to the Earth. (This
is normal because it will have directive antennae which
always shall point at the same place on Earth. TV?)
So a telescope (operated by a human or a computer) pointing
away from the Earth can observe a star, and with clock B
measure the time between each time the star is at the same
position in the telescope.
And since we know that clock B runs slow this must be measured:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
Do you still not agree?
If not, specify exactly what is wrong above
On Friday 19 January 2024 at 19:32:57 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 19.01.2024 12:48, skrev Lou:
On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 13:48:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I will use the example with a geostationary satellite
because that's the only way an observer on the ground
can have a satellite continuously in sight.
So we have an observer with clock A at equator at longitude 0⁰,
and a geostationary satellite with clock B at longitude 0⁰.
This means that the satellite always will be at the zenith
as viewed from the observer on the ground.
Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
This means that clock A will measure the duration one rotation of
the Earth to be:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC) >>>> We agree that clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) >>>> relative to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be: >>>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
If you don't agree in everything so far, we stop here.
======================================================
I don’t agree at all. In a classical model a second up there is the same time
as a second down here. The only thing that happens is up there every second >>> the caesium atoms beat slightly faster due to atomic resonance responding >>> to lesser G force. (GM/r) As I’ve repeatedly said. But the divisor in the sat
compensate by counting 9192631774.1 beats a second.
Your calculation above is incorrect. You have time passing at a different >>> rate up there. That’s relativity. Not classical theory.
Correct your above calculation so both sat and ground clock are both counting the
same amount of seconds every second. And then maybe I’ll talk.
OK. So we stop here and take a closer look at what is measured
in the satellite.
Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI. And so does your
wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
extremely high precision.
Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ... regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
Then you can’t then contradict yourself and say that time passes faster
up there in orbit in a classical model. Or that a sat clock B has a different length of a second than a ground clocks second.
You forgot that in a classical model time and the passage of time is the
same EVERYWHERE in the universe.
You deliberately ignored the fact that under a classical model clock B is just ticking at a faster rate per second up there because under a classical model resonant frequencies of atoms (and clock atoms) speed up under
a lower force of gravity as per GM/r.
If you agree that both A and
B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ... regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second.
On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to havePaul wroteYour logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI. >>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
extremely high precision.
B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ... >>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless >>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
different number of times per second.
Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies can still beat out the same length of a second.
After
having said the opposite earlier in that he had tried to say a second
cannot be comprised of any amount of beats. Just 9192631770.! :-D
So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1
up there in space.
And this is confirmed by observations.
GPS sat clocks do
indeed best faster per second up there.
You admitted it yourself
when you admitted the divisor has to be set to count 9292631774.1
beats per second to match the second on earth.
Particularly for Cs clocks, since
the second is DEFINED as the time taken for 9192631770 Cs atom
transitions. DEFINED. Not 5, not 3333333333, not 9192631774.1, but
9192631770 transitions is exactly 1 second.
You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
*on the geoid*.
But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
If you look up atomic clocks
etc you will see that the most accurate “second” has to be derived by comparing atomic clocks at different potentials to determine what the official geoid second is.
Why? Because the same atomic clock will have
a different frequency at different altitudes.
And thus give a different second
length at different altitudes.
And it is therefore the frequency of the atomic clock *at the geoid* that defines the internationally accepted standard for a second.
Not the frequency of the same atomic clock at the top of Everest.
So yes ......the observations confirm that caesium atoms DO beat
at faster rates at higher altitudes as predicted by a non relativistic classical
model. Contrary to your above false claim that they dont!!!
On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 12:46:03 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
We are not "in a classical model", or in "a relativistic model."
We are in the real world!
Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.
In the real geostationary satellite in the real world
there is a real, normal atomic clock ticking out seconds
as defined by SI. The only way to measure time in the real
geostationary satellite is to use this real clock.
And when this satellite sends a signal with frequency f₁= 10GHz
then there are 10E9 cycles per second measured by the real normal clock.
Since we agree that this real clock "up there" will run
fast by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC,
you must also agree to the following:
This real clock up there isn’t running fast relative to UTC.
Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC
Wrong. You forgot. The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measuresRight!
One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
faster.
The second does not change with altitude of a clock above or below
the geoid.
Our *observations* of a clock's readings, however, *does* depend on
the gravitational potential difference between the clock's position
and our own.
Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second length matches the ground second.
And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.
But then in complete contradiction you then say that all these Cs clocks aren’t beating at different frequencies or running at different speeds at different altitudes.
And that they only magically appear to be running at
different speeds.
I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1 beats per second due to the effects of gravity.
And needs to be corrected by an
onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:13:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.
Here is the definition of a second we use in the real world:
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value
of the cesium frequency ∆ν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to
be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is
equal to s⁻¹."
All normal clocks which use second as the time unit
are build according to this definition.
The difference between your wristwatch and an atomic
clock is only the precision of the clock.
So yes, all normal clocks run at their normal rate
and ticks out a second per second everywhere and always.
This is the DEFINITION of "time" as used by engineers
and physicist in the real world.
We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!
The rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock in circular orbit is:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Δf/f = dτ/dt_utc - 1 = - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc
where:
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
δutc = 6.96927E-10
(1 + δutc) is the rate of UTC relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time
Normal clock in geostationary orbit:
------------------------------------
p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
A normal clock in geostationary orbit runs fast by
Δf/f = 5.391498E-10
relative to UTC.
Previously you claimed that "the classical model" predicted
the same as GR for the rate of clocks "up there".
Now you seem to have changed your mind.
So please tell me:
What is the rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock
in geostationary orbit?
Is it (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC as we know is correct,
or is it something else?
Note that the predictions by a non relativistic classical model that
resonant frequencies of atomic clocks will be faster at higher altitudes
are also thoroughly confirmed by GPS,Galileo and GLONASS.
On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 11:02:17 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
Right!
The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
faster.
To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
or the GPS wouldn't work.
Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
And thanks for agreeing with me that this is also a confirmation of
the non relativistic classical model prediction. Seeing as you just admitted that
the GPS orbit clocks atoms frequency is faster per second then when on the ground
and needs to be corrected by an onboard divisor.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:02:17 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:There is a lot of talking past each other, e.g.:
Right!
The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
faster.
To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
or the GPS wouldn't work.
Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
"No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
is not a normal clock.
It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
It runs too slow to be a normal clock."
No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as a clock on Earth.
Skeptics know that but you think you have to explain it:
"To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
or the GPS wouldn't work."
So, why adjust again for the gravitational blue shift? Or adjust for the radio signal as Roberts asserts below?
How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
it?
Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.
If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a
gravitational blue shift.
Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and
not reduced gravity.
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 3:11:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
This means that clock A will measure the duration of one rotation
of the Earth to be:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative
to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
The geostationary satellite sends a signal with frequency
f₁ = 10 GHz as measured by clock B.
The number of cycles sent during one orbit is:
N = τ₁⋅f₁ = 861640905464553.8 cycles
Since A during one rotation of the Earth will receive all the N
cycles emitted by B during one orbit, he will measure the received
frequency to be:
f₀ = N/τ₀ = 10.0000000053915 GHz
f₀ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
This is called gravitational blue shift which is an inevitable
consequence of the fact that clocks in high orbit run fast relative to UTC. >> AND it is observed in the real world.
How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating it?
Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.
If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a gravitational blue shift. Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and not reduced gravity. You seem to have conflated the two.
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:14:38 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So the clocks are modified by means of an oscillator that makes them run the same rate in space as on Earth BY DEFINITION.
How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibratingThe Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
it?
that, because it is a DEFINITION. Such Cs-133 clocks are
self-calibrating (because of that definition).
So the designers and implementers of GPS satellites modified the "clock"
to cancel the gravitational blueshift of signals to the ground. This is
not a standard clock.
Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
mechanism on the satellite has been modified so SIGNALS TO THE GROUND
arrive at the correct frequency. In doing so they also canceled the
difference in elapsed proper time of the satellite clock compared to
clocks on the ground.
[Here ground means geoid.]
That modification is 38 microseconds per day. The GPS system also
corrects the clock parameters daily, which includes the overall offset,
but these are more than a thousand times smaller than the modification;
they account for deviations from the ideal orbit, effects of planets and
the sun, clock drift, etc.
If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not aHmmmm. The "clock" in the GPS satellites is NOT "left to run fast", it
gravitational blue shift.
has been MODIFIED. The SIGNALS TO THE GROUND experience gravitational
blueshift, not the "clock".
Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction andThis is just plain not true. Gravitational blueshift is generated by
not reduced gravity.
differences in gravitational potential [#], not "gravitational
attraction" as you falsely claim.
[#] In weak fields, with speeds << c, such as in the GPS.
You have been told this MANY times in MANY different ways. The fact that
you are unable to understand this indicates that physics is just not for
you -- find some other hobby for which you are more suited.
Tom Roberts
On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 05:49:02 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
The nonstandard clock in a GPS satellite runs at a slower rate
than a clock on the geoid.
9 192 631 774 is slower rate than 9 192 631 770, poor halfbrain?
Of course, there is nothing exceptional or nonstandard there.
They're completely ordunary clocks,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 360 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 133:02:40 |
| Calls: | 7,686 |
| Files: | 12,828 |
| Messages: | 5,711,426 |