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,
like in the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS
Almost ALL relativists forget that the 1961 paper had the name: "Do
photons have weight?".
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.
Also (Paul and so many others), they FORGET that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to
measure each effect separately.
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).
What PERSISTS is that Einstein, Pound-Rebka and many others before and
after, ACCEPTED THAT PHOTONS HAD MASS.
If photons have mass (electromagnetic mass), then MANY THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS HAVE TO BE REFORMULATED.
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).
And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².
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).
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
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.
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.
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
Paul, how fragile your memory is!
You forgot that I was the one who noticed you about the existence of the Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!
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.
Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:|
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf
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.
This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
************************************************************************
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.
************************************************************************
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 74:11:13 |
Calls: | 7,775 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,749,985 |