• Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 y

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 18:16:20 2024
    Mr. Hertz: They can't deal with it because they would have to give up
    their mass-velocity relationship, which prevents anything with mass from reaching c. They need photons to have mass to be affected by gravity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 22:41:09 2024
    Den 14.09.2024 05:31, skrev rhertz:
    This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
    On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

    ***********************************************************************
    2. On the Gravitation of Energy
    ......

    Then Eq.1 becomes

    f₁ = f₂ (1 + hγ/c²)

    OR

    Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²


    Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment, the
    1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE,

    See equation (7) in:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

    If we ignore the rotation of the Earth, GR predicts that
    the gravitational blue shift is: (From Schwarzschild metric)

    @@@@Δf/f = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/(R+h)) (1)

    Where:
    G = gravitational constant
    M = mass of Earth
    R = radius of Earth
    c = speed of light
    h = altitude, in this case height of the tower.

    If h/R << 1 the equation can be simplify ed to:@

    @@@@Δf/f ≈ gh/c² (2)

    where g = GM/R², the gravitational acceleration

    In this case h/R ≈ 3.5e-6, which is << 1.

    like in the 2017 Mudrak
    theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS

    You mean this paper:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf

    The equation given in this paper is:


    Where:
    a = the radius of the Earth
    r = the distance from the centre of the Earth to the satellite
    Ω = the angular velocity of the Earth

    The gravitational term is: @@@@Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r)

    Which is equal to (1), and, in this case, _very_ different from (2)

    For Galileo r = 29600000 m.
    a = 6378137 m
    GM = 3.986004418e14 m³/s²
    c = 299792458 m/s

    So the equation above give: Δf/f = 5.45516e-10

    For Galileo the altitude is h = r - a = 23221863 m
    g = 9.800 m/s²

    Equation (2) gives Δf/f = gh/c² = 2.5321e-9

    which is 2.6 times too high.

    So Einstein's equation which you claim is the equation
    used in the calculation of the gravitational blue shift
    of satellites doesn't work. It is wrong.



    Almost ALL relativists forget that the 1961 paper had the name: "Do
    photons have weight?".

    That may be because the name of the paper was:
    "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"

    https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
    (The last paper)

    One may say that photons appear to have weight because
    they have momentum.

    You probably know that you can weigh light?
    Let the Sun shine of a sensitive weight, and it will register a force.
    Photons have no mass, so it isn't gravitation.
    But the weight does register something which is called weight. :-J


    All relativists claim that the 1911 paper WAS WRONG, and that was valid
    was the 1915 Schwarzschild solution, which is WIDELY USED TODAY, but
    that contain the conjugate effects of SR and GR.

    But RELATIVISTS FORGET that Schwarzschild solution is theoretically
    separated in two parts: GR and SR effects.

    When gravitation is involved, GR must be used.
    But when the orbit (or path) is circular with the Earth in
    the centre, there will be one term that depend on altitude,
    and one term that depends on the velocity.
    The former is called the gravitational term, the latter
    is called the kinematic term.
    It is however quite common to see the gravitational term called
    the "GR term", and the kinematic term called the "SR term".
    But both follows from the Schwarzschild metric.


    Also (Paul and so many others), they FORGET that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to
    measure each effect separately.

    The Pound-Rebka was a measure of the gravitational term.
    And so was gravity probe A.
    And several experiments have tested the kinematic term.
    In the latter case we would call it test of SR, because
    it must be performed at constant gravitational potential.


    So, the 1911 Einstein's equation is ALIVE TODAY, and widely used (with
    minor aggregations like quadrupolar momentum J2, which is irrelevant and
    can be dismissed here).

    :-D
    Equation (2) can only be used when h/R << 1, which will be
    when the object is a tower or an aeroplane.

    It is impossible to use it for satellites.


    What PERSISTS is that Einstein, Pound-Rebka and many others before and
    after, ACCEPTED THAT PHOTONS HAD MASS.

    Nonsense.
    Newton thought that light consisted of massive corpuscles,
    But Einstein, Pound and Rebka thought that em-radiation was a wave
    according to Maxwell, and that photons were small waves, limited
    in time and space. According to Maxwell, em-radiation have
    energy and momentum, but no mass.

    Now we know that photons are particles with energy and momentum,
    but no mass.



    If photons have mass (electromagnetic mass), then MANY THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS HAVE TO BE REFORMULATED.

    Many of the theoretical explanations of the 19. century
    ARE REFORMULATED.

    Were have you been the last century, Richard?


    If photons have mass, such mass has to be incorporated in the
    calculations of gravitational fields and electromagnetic energies, as Einstein CLAIMED in 1911.

    Then, photons falling into Earth's surface GAIN KINETIC ENERGY WHILE
    FALLING (blue-shifting), and photons abandoning Earth's surface LOSS
    KINETIC ENERGY WHILE ESCAPING (red-shifting).

    If photons had mass, their speed would have to increase to make
    the kinetic energy increase.

    But the speed of light is constant as it falls.
    Can you explain this?


    And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².

    Do you really not better? :-D

    It
    also implies that INERTIAL electromagnetic mass IS DIFFERENT FROM GRAVITATIONAL ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS, and that the first one is variable
    with height, in this way:

    Δm/m₂ = -hGM/rc²  (h represents the height above surface, being h << r. Low altitudes).

    So you knew that gh/c² is an approximation which is only valid when
    h << r?

    Why did you then say that the equation gh/c² was usedin the 2017 Mudrak theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS,
    where h = 3.64r ?



    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 22:52:15 2024
    Den 14.09.2024 22:41, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
    Den 14.09.2024 05:31, skrev rhertz:
    And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².

    Do you really not better? :-D

    Do you really not know better?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 21:38:07 2024
    Le 14/09/2024 à 22:18, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
    They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
    increasing with speed, in this way:

    1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
    mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
    MASS IS INVARIANT.

    2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
    accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
    because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.

    The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
    = (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.

    Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
    is stored

    There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2, except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
    by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.

    Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).

    Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
    but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
    a grain of sand or a neutron.

    Yes, there are scientists who are a little less stupid than the others who
    no longer use this concept that should never have existed.

    I think it is one of the stupidest and most fanatical concepts of the
    theory of relativity. One day, it will disappear, perhaps thanks to
    artificial intelligence that will come and stick its nose in it, and joke
    about it; denouncing it as particularly stupid.

    As for me, my hands are clean, I have been saying it for forty years, with conviction and consistency.

    I repeat it again here, it is NOT the mass that varies, but "the
    impression of speed". The observer who measures the particles,
    does not realize that the relativity of time, that is to say especially,
    here, of the notion of simultaneity, makes him observe a false
    measurement.
    I called this false measurement the obversible speed Vo relative to the
    real speed Vr of the particle in the subject's frame of reference.

    Let's give the particle its real speed, and everything is in order.

    Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) <---> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

    p=m.Vr
    E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
    Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]

    In no case, in my life, have I ever posed m'=m/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

    The concept is false and useless.

    The absurd thought.

    Does a hippopotamus become two hippos if we accelerate it?

    No.

    It increases its quantity of movement, it increases its overall energy, it increases its kinetic energy. Not its "mass", nor its "electric charge".

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 02:58:11 2024
    Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
    science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
    journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
    curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully gullible.
    "I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
    his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
    Heaviside

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 07:58:38 2024
    Am Samstag000014, 14.09.2024 um 22:18 schrieb rhertz:
    They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
    increasing with speed, in this way:

    1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
    mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
    MASS IS INVARIANT.

    Both is wrong!

    SRT is based on speed, but the 'background' of SRT is a dark and
    force-free void, where the term 'speed' makes no sense.

    But SRT isn't entirely wrong.

    The question is not velocity, but the orientation of the axis of time!

    Time is a local parameter, hence only a single axis of time exists in a
    certain environment.

    This 'axis of time' is actually imaginary, because time is orthogonal to
    all the axes of space.

    This means:
    x= i*c*t

    Now we could take a subset of spacetime and use only x and t.

    Then t points upwards and x to the right.

    This is actually, how we draw a complex 'Argand-diagramm'.

    The axis of time is then the imaginary axis and the spacelike axis x the
    real axis.

    Now we could do an unsusual trick and rotate the picture and make the
    axis of time point into another direction.

    This would make the former space shrink andlet a new space emerge,
    because the axes of space need to be perpendicular to the axis of time.

    This new space is also filled with new matter, which pops out of nowhere (suposed we could enter such a new space).

    The latter statement is now the reason, why I think, that mass is not conserved.


    TH

    (see my 'book' about this concept:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
    )

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 20:17:54 2024
    Den 15.09.2024 00:15, skrev rhertz:

    Paul.b.Andersen wrote:

    Den 14.09.2024 05:31, skrev rhertz:

    Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²

    Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment,
    the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE, like in the 2017
    Mudrak theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on
    Galileo GNSS.


    You mean this paper:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf

    The equation given in this paper is:

    Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r) + ((aΩ)² − v²)/2c²

    The gravitational term is: Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r)

    Which is _very_ different from Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²


    So I caught you in the lie that Einstein's 1911 equation
    was used in Mudrak's paper.

    Paul, how fragile your memory is!

    Both your an my memories are just fine.

    You haven't forgotten that I caught you in a lie,
    but you are trying to divert the attention from it!


    You forgot that I was the one who noticed you about the existence of the Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!

    Of course I haven't forgotten.

    Mudrak (an EE like you) was full of shit and anger when he wrote that
    paper. He was MAD because the Galileo Consortium decided TO NOT
    INCORPORATE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS INTO THE GROUND RECEIVERS. They
    left the "responsability" to the receiver's manufacturers, WHICH DIDN'T
    WANT TO FOLLOW GR.

    You seem very confused. :-D
    "RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS INTO THE GROUND RECEIVERS".

    The "corrections in the ground receivers" are done in exactly
    the same way in GPS and Galileo.
    The monitor stations upload parameters in a correction polynomial
    to the SV. The SV downloads these parameters to the receiver.
    The receiver calculate the correction to add to the SV-clock time
    received from the SV.

    You can read all about it in the Interface Specification Documents https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo_OS_SIS_ICD_v2.1.pdf

    I hardly think Mudrak was "full of anger" because the corrections
    were done as specified in the Interface Control Document. :-D

    And I can't imagine what your mean by the statement:
    "They left the "responsability" to the receiver's manufacturers,
    WHICH DIDN'T WANT TO FOLLOW GR."

    And I bet you don't know either.

    ------------------

    But do I remember that you was the one who noticed you about
    the existence of the Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!

    Yes I remember it very well:


    05.09.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    |
    Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:

    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf
    |
    | Thanks for a very interesting paper!
    |
    |
    | And this paper answers the question we have been wondering about:
    | "Is the satellite clock corrected for relativistic effects?"
    |
    | Let's quote from the paper:
    | "At the time of writing, the frequency of the Galileo
    | satellite clocks is not corrected to compensate
    | the relativistic shift, unlike GPS. Nevertheless,
    | the capability to adjust the satellite clock frequency,
    | e.g. in order to align it to GST, is available. Galileo
    | onboard clocks will be periodically aligned to GST both
    | and phase and frequency to maintain these parameters
    | within the limits acceptable from the system operations
    | point of view. Furthermore, as an experiment, the relativistic
    | frequency shift of GSAT0102 (PRN E12) was corrected in orbit,
    | after launch."
    |
    | I quote from a previous conversation:
    |
    | | On July 15, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    | |> Den 14.07.2021 05:56, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    |
    | |>> A number of years ago, Paul Andersen had given a link
    | |>> to a description of the tunable frequency synthesizers
    | |>> used in current GPS satellites.
    | |>> Although the earliest GPS satellites could not be
    | |>> fine-tuned, current satellites -are- tunable.
    | |>> The nominal frequency offset mentioned in the GPS
    | |>> ICD is merely that: a -nominal- frequency offset.
    | |>>
    | |>
    | |> The paper at the mentioned link doesn't seem to be
    | |> available any more, but here is another paper about
    | |> the same issue:
    | |>
    | |> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a485237.pdf
    | |>
    | |> "The purpose of the GPS Block II-R TKS shown in Figure 1
    | |> is to tune the 10.23 MHz digitally controlled VCXO to produce
    | |> the GPS navigation signal with the timing accuracy of RAFS.
    | |> By linking the VCXO to the RAFS using a control loop controlled
    | |> by software, it is possible to precisely adjust the frequency
    | |> and phase of the TKS output, to cancel drift of the RAFS once
    | |> it has been characterized, and to detect any anomalous RAFS
    | |> frequency or phase excursions."
    | |>
    | |> TKS = Time Keeping System
    | |> RAFS = Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard
    | |>
    | |> I think such a TKS has been in all Block II satellites,
    | |> and I strongly suspect that there is a similar system
    | |> in Galileo satellites.
    |
    | So I was right. It is a "similar system" in the Galileo
    | satellites that make it possible to tune the frequency
    | after launch. And the satellite clock frequency is adjusted
    | by the factor -4.7219E-10 to align it to the GST (Galileo
    | System Time).

    And the rate of the Galileo SV clocks not only can be,
    but are adjusted by the factor -4.7219E-10

    | 06.09.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Open this link:
    https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
    see fig.8 page 11.

    The clock offset (a_f1) will be the dominating factor
    in the clock correction.

    The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has been almost constant
    ≈ -500 μS since April 2019 to January 2021,
    The clock has been ≈500 μS ahead of System time all the time.

    The GSAT0220/E33 clock correction has been almost constant
    ≈ +380 μS since February 2019 to January 2021,
    The clock has been ≈380 μS behind System time all the time.

    The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
    ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
    That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.1 μS/day

    The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
    ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 420 μS in January 2021.
    That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.5 μS/day

    So the clock frequencies must have been corrected by
    the factor -4.7219E-10.

    You probably don't understand what I am talking about,
    but I won't bother to explain.

    You invariably stay clueless whatever I say.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to rhertz on Mon Sep 16 11:15:17 2024
    On 2024-09-14 03:31:43 +0000, rhertz said:

    This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
    On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

    After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
    Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 16 22:49:07 2024
    W dniu 16.09.2024 o 22:38, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
    Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:

    2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
    Earth's ground) by a factor:

    Δf/f = Φ/c² =  GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)

    with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

    This is wrong.

    Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
    Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.

    Anyone can check GPS - neither your
    delusional scenarios nor your SI idiocy
    have anything in common with real clocks,
    real measurements or real whatever.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 16 22:38:57 2024
    Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:

    2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
    Earth's ground) by a factor:

    Δf/f = Φ/c² =  GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)

    with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

    This is wrong.

    Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
    Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.

    Some data:
    Geocentric gravitational constant GM = 3.986004418⋅10¹⁴ m³/s²
    Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
    Sidereal day tₛ = 86164.0905 s
    Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m


    Clock C₀ is stationary on the geoid at equator, longitude 0.
    The proper time of this clock will for one rotation of
    the Earth be τ₀ = 86164.0905 s

    Clock C₁ is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
    The orbital period p is half a sidereal day, p = 43082.04525 s
    The radius of the orbit is then r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m.

    The proper time of this clock to make two orbits around
    the Earth will be:

    τ₁ = (1 + (GM/c²)⋅(1/R-1/r)+(v₀²-v₁²)/2c²)⋅τ₀

    where:
    The speed of clock C₀ in the ECI frame v₀ = 2πR/tₛ = 465.1011 m/s
    The speed of clock C₁ in the ECI frame v₁ = 2πr/p = 3873.8291 m/s

    τ₁ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)⋅τ₀ = 86164.0905 s + 38.49 μs

    Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
    They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.

    dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.



    At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
    cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is, prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
    ANY ground station.

    A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
    what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.

    And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
    each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
    clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
    the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.

    This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
    if it according to you is impossible.

    Since the clock C₁ has exactly the same orbital data as a GPS satellite, dτ₁/τ₀ is the same as a GPS satellite where the rate of the clock
    is not adjusted down.

    Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977 https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

    It confirmed GR's prediction.


    In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
    in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
    ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory
    in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
    orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.

    What an idiotic idea. :-D

    t = 1234 s are digital data

    How would you store analog data?
    As a voltage in a capacitor?
    Would that keep the the theory pure?



    Digital technology was unknown 100 years ago (even 70 years ago). There
    is NO mathematical explanation about what happens when you TRANSFORM
    analog information of EM radiation into digital info (A.K.A digital
    counters of BOTH CLOCKS.

    Richard Hertz's mind works in mysterious ways. :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to rhertz on Tue Sep 17 09:04:33 2024
    On 2024-09-16 16:32:40 +0000, rhertz said:

    ************************************************************************
    On 2024-09-14 03:31:43 +0000, rhertz said:


    This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
    On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light


    After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
    Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.


    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to rhertz on Tue Sep 17 09:10:49 2024
    On 2024-09-16 16:32:40 +0000, rhertz said:

    ************************************************************************
    On 2024-09-14 03:31:43 +0000, rhertz said:


    This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
    On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light


    After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
    Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.

    Actually, those "Better ways to present what was already known have also
    been developed." are ALL THE SAME, expressed in similar but equivalent
    ways to the 1911 Postulate.

    Of couse an presentation must be essentially the same as another
    presentation of the same thing. If there are differences other
    that presentational it is no longer a presentation of the same
    thing.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 17:45:38 2024
    Den 16.09.2024 23:53, skrev rhertz:
    Paul B Andersen wrote:
    Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:

    2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
    Earth's ground) by a factor:

    Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)

    with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.


    This is wrong.

    Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
    Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.

    Some data:
    Geocentric gravitational constant GM = 3.986004418⋅10¹⁴ m³/s²
    Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
    Sidereal day tₛ = 86164.0905 s
    Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m


    Clock C₀ is stationary on the geoid at equator, longitude 0.
    The proper time of this clock will for one rotation of
    the Earth be τ₀ = 86164.0905 s

    Clock C₁ is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
    The orbital period p is half a sidereal day, p = 43082.04525 s
    The radius of the orbit is then r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m.

    The proper time of this clock to make two orbits around
    the Earth will be:

    τ₁ = (1 + (GM/c²)⋅(1/R-1/r)+(v₀²-v₁²)/2c²)⋅τ₀

    where:
    The speed of clock C₀ in the ECI frame v₀ = 2πR/tₛ = 465.1011 m/s
    The speed of clock C₁ in the ECI frame v₁ = 2πr/p = 3873.8291 m/s

    τ₁ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)⋅τ₀ = 86164.0905 s + 38.49 μs

    Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
    They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.

    dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.



    APPEAR? You are using my expressions 100%: APPEAR; IS PERCEIVED TO BE;
    ... You are a funny guy.


    Trying to divert the attention form the fact that I showed you wrong?

    Your equation for a satellite with orbital time half a sidereal day
    would give:
    Δf/f = 5.2839⋅10⁻¹⁰, the correct is: Δf/f = 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰

    Your equation is wrong because it doesn't contain the kinematic term.
    You can't ignore that for a satellite!

    Your statement:
    "The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower"
    is not the same as my statement:
    "C₁ appear to run faster than C₀"

    "slower" isn't 100% the same as "faster"!

    Your statement is 100% wrong.
    My statement is 100% correct.


    At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
    cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
    prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
    ANY ground station.


    A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
    what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.

    And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
    each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
    clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
    the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.

    This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
    if it according to you is impossible.



    The corrections ARE NECESSARY TWICE A DAY in order to correct every
    onboard atomic clock, so the SLIPS due to flight perturbations, cosmic
    and EM radiation PLUS natural short-term instabilities on each one. You should know better about short-term jumps in ANY ATOMIC CLOCK, which (if
    not corrected) would make each clock frequency randomly drift from the others. And, as a digital clock is a counter, those instabilities
    ACCUMULATE. So, from Earth, corrections are made constantly to have the entire network in sync all the time.

    The SV clock is not corrected while the SV is in service.

    I have told you before:
    The monitor stations upload parameters in a correction polynomial
    to the SV, typically once a day. The SV downloads these parameters
    to the receiver. The receiver calculate the correction to add to
    the SV-clock time received from the SV.

    One parameter in the correction polynomial is the "clock offset".
    It simply says how wrong the clock is, and is added to the SV-clock
    time received from the SV.
    In the GPS, the number of bits in the register containing the parameter
    is so that the "clock offset" must be less than ~1 ms, or the register
    will overflow. That means that the SV clock must be less than 1 ms
    off sync.

    If the SV clock was not corrected by the GR correction (1-4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰) the "clock offset" register would overflow after less than 25 days.
    But the SV clocks can run for years without corrections.


    Since the clock C₁ has exactly the same orbital data as a GPS satellite, >> dτ₁/τ₀ is the same as a GPS satellite where the rate of the clock
    is not adjusted down.

    Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977
    https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

    It confirmed GR's prediction.


    WERE YOU THERE WITNESSING THAT CRAPPY TEST? NO! YOU JUST BELIEVE IT.

    What a stupid remark! :-D

    Of course I believe it.
    This is not a test of GR, it is a test of a GPS satellite.
    The engineers that built the satellite were not convinced
    that the GR prediction was right, so the satellite was
    launched with no correction, but it contained a frequency
    synthesiser which could be switched on and lower the frequency
    by Δf/f = -4.45⋅10⁻¹⁰
    It was run for some time without correction.
    See fig 10. It shows what was measured during 6 days.
    The frequency was Δf/f = 4.425⋅10⁻¹⁰ too high.
    When they switched on the synthesiser they measured
    Δf/f = -3.1⋅10⁻¹², see fig 21.

    The engineers who made this report didn't care if the GR
    prediction was right or wrong, their only concern was to get
    the satellite to work. They found that the GR-correction was
    necessary to make the satellite work.

    It is ridiculous to claim that they were member of a MAFIA,
    and profit from it, because the different results are
    COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
    cooking and peer complicity.

    You must be pretty stupid if you don't believe it.



    In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
    in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
    ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory >>> in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
    orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.



    What an idiotic idea. 😂

    t = 1234 s are digital data

    How would you store analog data?
    As a voltage in a capacitor?
    Would that keep the the theory pure?


    Before high speed digital counters (started around 1961, at 10 Mhz top), there were analog computers for more than 60 years (since 1900). HUGE
    and very costly ANALOG COMPUTERS, capable of iterations and recursion.

    Data was stored in accurate mechanical springs, LIKE the ones used in
    pocket and wristwatches TO STORE DATA, plus mechanical latches.

    You REALLY need to read about history of science, relativistic viking.

    Do you pretend TO TELL EVERYONE HERE that, before digital counters, to believe in relativity was an ACT OF FAITH for 50 years? You are
    confirming that relativists are really a bunch of retarded.

    Probably, you and them evolved from Neardenthal sub-humans, that did
    mate with some Cro-magnon people.

    And that happened in continental Europe, you know? In the forests there,
    the two species mated.

    Did you verify your DNA, to trace broken links? Because that could
    explain a lot, Paul.

    Is this irrelevant babble supposed to be a defence of this
    incredible stupid statement of yours?

    "In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative
    difference in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are
    sent back to the ground lab for comparisons, because it violates
    the purity of the theory in this way: Relativity formulae are
    ANALOG, while data stored in orbiting clocks is DIGITAL."

    Maybe you will another attempt to explain why this statement is true?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 18:01:46 2024
    Paul: No one doubts the clocks function differently in space. We don't
    think relativity is necessary for the calibrations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)