Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> 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.

No theory "Explains" anything.
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?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:18:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> 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.

And we know that what you know is some delusional
bullshit. Anyone can check GPS, the measured period
is the same.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:18:42 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > 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.
> No theory "Explains" anything.
> 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?
>
Depends on which Newton formula you use.
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 1/9/2024 8:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

And ignoring the facts, once given to you, certainly is.

> 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.

As I mentioned, you stumbled across GR's Schwarzschild's metric, GM/rc².
Good job at helping validate GR.

> 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.

You merely have to apply GR's formula once you have the values.
>
> 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.

Look at the design specs for the NTS-2 satellite.

> At which point the clock gain had already been measured by the first
> GPS satelitte.

How could they have preset the value into the satellite before launch?
You keep ignoring this question!

> And as Ashby says in his paper the theorists and GPS engineers were
> not sure what the magnitude would be before launch.

The GR formula is quite specific. What did you misinterpret here?

> Why would
> Ashby the expert, if anyone is, say this if it wasn’t true?

We need to find what you misinterpreted.

> So my question is ..Was an exact offset of 4.1 for C-133 preset in the
> first GPS sat?

Go check the design specs for NTS-2. The answer is yes.

> Or was the offset “switch” variable?

No, it wasn't. It was yes/no, or Newtonian/GR.

> Because the various literature
> on the first test indicates the ground engineers were able to monitor
> the daily offset over weeks *before* switching on.

That was part of the purpose of the switch. It was an experiment of
whether the predictions of GR would be confirmed or falsified.

> So it looks they
> measured the offset before they knew it’s exact magnitude.

Wrong. They knew the exact magnitude from the GR formula.

> 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?

No.

> 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?

They knew. It was just an argument of whether GR applied, and a simple
remote on/off switch was all they would need.
>
> Is there any cited reference on this?
>
Yes, the design spec for the NTS-2. It's online; I found it before.

On 1/9/2024 9:28 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:18:42 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>> 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.
>> No theory "Explains" anything.
>> 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?
>>
> Depends on which Newton formula you use.

That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
formula for any situation.

> 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 Galilean
transform where t' = t?

Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except
to calculate potential energy due to gravity.

> 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.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:28:31 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/9/2024 8:09 AM, Lou wrote:
> > 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:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> And ignoring the facts, once given to you, certainly is.

You nor Paul ever gave me the fact I asked for. So how could I ignore a
non existent fact?
So give me the fact. Please cite the online peer reviewed reference
saying GR and SR together give a predicted offset of 4.1 for C-133
That’s 9192631774.1 *before 1977*. Which yes, you predicted.
But you gave that to me a few weeks ago. Not before 1977.

> > 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.
> As I mentioned, you stumbled across GR's Schwarzschild's metric, GM/rc².
> Good job at helping validate GR.

Anyone can stumble across GM/r and see it accurately models
the ratios/ proportions of any clock gains/losses. Just not the magnitude.

> > 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.
> You merely have to apply GR's formula once you have the values.

Maybe. But before they were measured in 1977?
I still don’t have any citations predicting a clock gain of 4.1 for C-133
before 1977 to prove this
> >
> > 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.
> Look at the design specs for the NTS-2 satellite.

I have. But was it printed before 1977?

> > At which point the clock gain had already been measured by the first
> > GPS satelitte.
> How could they have preset the value into the satellite before launch?
> You keep ignoring this question!

Because you keep on refusing to answer it.

> > And as Ashby says in his paper the theorists and GPS engineers were
> > not sure what the magnitude would be before launch.
> The GR formula is quite specific. What did you misinterpret here?
> > Why would
> > Ashby the expert, if anyone is, say this if it wasn’t true?
> We need to find what you misinterpreted.
> > So my question is ..Was an exact offset of 4.1 for C-133 preset in the
> > first GPS sat?
> Go check the design specs for NTS-2. The answer is yes.
> > Or was the offset “switch” variable?
> No, it wasn't. It was yes/no, or Newtonian/GR.

Evidence please. Pre 1977. Nowadays they know what the offset is.
Did they know before 1977 that 9192631770 would gain 4.1 ?
Evidence please. Don’t worry. If you can provide a pre 1977 calculation
with a result saying C-133 would give a specific clock gain of 4.1 from relativity.
It will be a fact I will acknowledge.

> > Because the various literature
> > on the first test indicates the ground engineers were able to monitor
> > the daily offset over weeks *before* switching on.
> That was part of the purpose of the switch. It was an experiment of
> whether the predictions of GR would be confirmed or falsified.
> > So it looks they
> > measured the offset before they knew it’s exact magnitude.
> Wrong. They knew the exact magnitude from the GR formula.

Citation of prediction please.
(GM/r) ÷ c^2 doesn’t.
The clock doesn’t gain one 5.27e-10 of 8.9875518e+16/sec
That’s a predicted gain of 1.1126501e-17 per second. Not observed.

> > 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?
> No.
> > 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?
> They knew. It was just an argument of whether GR applied, and a simple
> remote on/off switch was all they would need.
> >
> > Is there any cited reference on this?
> >
> Yes, the design spec for the NTS-2. It's online; I found it before.

Cite it, Copy it , paste it. Otherwise it’s hearsay.
You won’t be able to. Because for starters your source is post 1977

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:
> >> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> 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.
> >> No theory "Explains" anything.
> >> 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?
> >>
> > Depends on which Newton formula you use.
> That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
> 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 Galilean
> transform where t' = t?
>
Yes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
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 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.

You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats
faster at higher altitudes.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, 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:
> >> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> 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.
> >> No theory "Explains" anything.
> >> 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?
> >>
> > Depends on which Newton formula you use.
> That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
> formula for any situation.
> > 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 Galilean
> transform where t' = t?
>
> Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except
> to calculate potential energy due to gravity.
> > 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.

Nope, stupid Mike. Anyone can check GPS, the wrong answer is all
yours.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 00:26:21 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 1:06:06 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:38:59 UTC, 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.)
> > > >
> > > 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
> > What about lower gravity causes the atomic clock to move faster?
> Yes that’s a possible alternative explanation. It’s called resonance and
> it’s precedence is clear, well before 1900. Harmonic oscillators all
> respond to increased external force by lowering their resonant frequencies.
> There’s probably a few formulas modelling this on wiki if you looked.
> I mentioned this possibility various times here on sci.relativity in the
> past. Actually GM/r on its own clearly predicts the exact ratios of gravity
> strength to earth ratios and the resulting clock offsets ratios for r.
> But not the magnitude. One needs to somehow model exact amounts.
> Which is why we have the GR formula GM/r ÷c^2
> Or my “classical”version of GM/r ÷ f. (caesium 133 at 9192631770)
> The GR formula for r4.12 has a slightly smaller error margin of
> 0.0001 for r4.12 when totals are calculated. GM/r ÷ C-133
> gives a slightly larger error of .00021. So GR still seems to be the best
> unless you can prove otherwise.
> Below are calculated offsets for the GR component using the two
> different models. As you can see they both have the same proportional
> ratio progressions that are supposedly observed for clock gains.
> r GR C-133
> 2r 348 340
> 3r 464 453
> 4r 522 510
> GPS 528 515
> 5r 556 544
> But these amounts are not actually clock gains. They are how much of the potential
> of any radius is. Using GM/r divided up into millions of equal small amounts.
> So my question is : If dividing GM/r for GPS orbital radius of 4.12 earth radius
> into 1/89875518000000000 pieces gives a 5.27e-10 size for each piece.
> How does one deduce that each 5.27e-20 piece of GM/r has anything to do
> with clock ticking rates? My understanding is that GR says that potential somehow
> defines frequency ratios. How does Mass / distance = tick rates of clocks?

I enjoy Lou, he's schooling us.

Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
> Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency?

No, but it was probably because this chipping rate was appropriate.
One of the reasons for the modulation of the carrier with
the PRN code was to make the bandwidth wider, with 10.23 MHz
chipping rate the bandwidth will be 20.46 MHz. It's a kind of
spread spectrum technology to make the signal less sensitive for
noise and for other signals within the bandwidth (jamming).
Since the receiver knows the PRN codes, the receiver can recognise
the signal buried in the noise (matched filter), and identify
which satellite sent the signal.

Remember that all the satellites send the same carrier frequencies,
and at the receiver all these carriers are Doppler shifted differently,
and the signal from many satellites will be received by the same
radio receiver, so the signal is very noisy. So it is only kind
of matched filters that can separate the signals from the different
satellites.

> I was wondering if it was
> because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.

Don't think so.
It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,
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.

> I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
> where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:

Why should the radius of the orbit have anything to do with
the choice of chipping frequency?

That is a rather nonsensical idea!

>
> GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842

r-r' ? :-D

r' = 4.12 Earth radii is an approximation of the GPS radius
with a precision of only three significant digits
(or even less due to the ambiguity of "Earth radius"),
so why would you subtract this from the precise radius which
is 26561763 m with a precision of 8 significant digits?

What a weird idea!

> 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
>
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 09.01.2024 14:09, skrev Lou:
> 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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

You are obviously ignoring the facts given above.
Why is that?
Are you denying them?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 19:50:08 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
> > Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> > chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency?
> No, but it was probably because this chipping rate was appropriate.
> One of the reasons for the modulation of the carrier with
> the PRN code was to make the bandwidth wider, with 10.23 MHz
> chipping rate the bandwidth will be 20.46 MHz. It's a kind of
> spread spectrum technology to make the signal less sensitive for
> noise and for other signals within the bandwidth (jamming).
> Since the receiver knows the PRN codes, the receiver can recognise
> the signal buried in the noise (matched filter), and identify
> which satellite sent the signal.
>
> Remember that all the satellites send the same carrier frequencies,
> and at the receiver all these carriers are Doppler shifted differently,
> and the signal from many satellites will be received by the same
> radio receiver, so the signal is very noisy. So it is only kind
> of matched filters that can separate the signals from the different
> satellites.
> > I was wondering if it was
> > because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> > of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
> Don't think so.
> It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,

Anyone can check GPS, it's 9192631774 on
a satellite. Your absurd lies end there.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 20:03:17 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.01.2024 14:09, skrev Lou:
> > 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:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> You are obviously ignoring the facts given above.
> Why is that?
> Are you denying them?

He's not denying the facts above, he's denying
the delusions of some brainwashed fanatic morons
above.

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:
> > 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" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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.
> 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.
>
> 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!
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
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, January 9, 2024 at 6:42:58 AM UTC-8, 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:
> >> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> 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.
> >> No theory "Explains" anything.
> >> 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?
> >>
> > Depends on which Newton formula you use.
> That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
> formula for any situation.
> > 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 Galilean
> transform where t' = t?
>
> Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except
> to calculate potential energy due to gravity.
> > 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.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 22:29:48 UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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.
> > 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.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> 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.

Have you also falsified his competitors? Poincare,
Kuhn, Lakatos?
The pseudophilosophy of modern physics is even more
crappy than its pseudomathematics.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 22:44:38 UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:42:58 AM UTC-8, 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:
> > >> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > >>> 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.
> > >> No theory "Explains" anything.
> > >> 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?
> > >>
> > > Depends on which Newton formula you use.
> > That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
> > formula for any situation.
> > > 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 Galilean
> > transform where t' = t?
> >
> > Newtonian physics doesn't use the gravitational potential at all except
> > to calculate potential energy due to gravity.
> > > 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.

It is absolutely correct. It's just that the clocks are
no way any avatars of any Great Mystical Essence.
They're human made adjustable informational devices,
and time is a human made adjustable informational
abstract.

> Claiming that Newton can't predict the clock's rate because Newton does not have variable time is obvious nonsense.

Don't expect any sense in propaganda bullshit
of a mad ideology.

Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> 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.

A typical tactics for cranks is to ignore experimental
evidence like this:

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 GR.

The fact that these experiments prove that GR gives
the correct predictions for those particular experiments,
and for the satellite navigation systems GPS, GLONASS,
Galileo and BeiDou won't go away because Laurence Clark Crossen
doesn't like them.

Denying facts is irrational behavior!

>
> 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?

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

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 10:19:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The fact that these experiments prove that GR gives
> the correct predictions for those particular experiments,
> and for the satellite navigation systems GPS, GLONASS,
> Galileo and BeiDou won't go away because Laurence Clark Crossen
> doesn't like them.

Nope. The fact is that all of these network have their
clocks in sync, against the prophecies of your mad
religion. The fact won't go away just because a lying
idiot Paul Andersen doesn't like it and won't
mention it.

> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :

No, they don't. You're just asserting they do.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 19:03:17 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.01.2024 14:09, skrev Lou:
> > 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:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> You are obviously ignoring the facts given above.
> Why is that?
> Are you denying them?
>
One fact is certain. And that is once Google groups closes you will probably
not get any more views on those links to your website.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 18:50:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
> > Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> > chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency?
> No, but it was probably because this chipping rate was appropriate.
> One of the reasons for the modulation of the carrier with
> the PRN code was to make the bandwidth wider, with 10.23 MHz
> chipping rate the bandwidth will be 20.46 MHz. It's a kind of
> spread spectrum technology to make the signal less sensitive for
> noise and for other signals within the bandwidth (jamming).
> Since the receiver knows the PRN codes, the receiver can recognise
> the signal buried in the noise (matched filter), and identify
> which satellite sent the signal.
>
> Remember that all the satellites send the same carrier frequencies,
> and at the receiver all these carriers are Doppler shifted differently,
> and the signal from many satellites will be received by the same
> radio receiver, so the signal is very noisy. So it is only kind
> of matched filters that can separate the signals from the different
> satellites.
> > I was wondering if it was
> > because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> > of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
> Don't think so.
> It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,
> 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.

I didn’t see much at that link of any help. But it’s an interesting
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 ?

> > I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
> > where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:
> Why should the radius of the orbit have anything to do with
> the choice of chipping frequency?
>
Simple. GPS satelittes are the subject of this whole debate.
And so their orbital radius is of pivotal importance to calculating
Clock gains
Why calculate GPS clock gains using let’s say ..earth radius 2?

> That is a rather nonsensical idea!
>
> >
> > GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
>
> r-r' ? :-D
>
> r' = 4.12 Earth radii is an approximation of the GPS radius
> with a precision of only three significant digits
> (or even less due to the ambiguity of "Earth radius"),
> so why would you subtract this from the precise radius which
> is 26561763 m with a precision of 8 significant digits?
>
I’m not sure if I follow you here. 4.12 is usually quoted as an average
radius. Although I sometimes see calculations using 4.2
How do you claim a precise GPS orbital distance of 26561763.
If you then also admit there are many variables and 4.12 is an
average?
Also if GPS orbital distances vary that much this means any
calculation for GPS clock gains using radius couldn’t claim any
degree of accuracy.

> What a weird idea!

Not that weird. GR formulas do the the same.
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.

> > 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
> >
> >
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

>> Then, you must be able to explain what the physical cause is of the
>> atomic clock moving fast.
> No clock runs fast. Each clock ticks at its normal rate o̶f̶ 1 s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ p̶e̶r̶
> s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶.

impossible. It's totally oxymoron what you just said. You don't know yet
how long a second is, to have another second compared to it.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮’𝘀_𝗻𝗲𝘄_𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯_𝘁𝗼_𝗴𝗼_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
The PKB-500U Drel has reportedly completed all trials amid the conflict
with Ukraine
https://r%74.com/russia/590391-drel-gliding-bomb-series/

what can you do, amrica??

On 1/9/2024 10:08 AM, Lou wrote:
> 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:
>>>> Den 08.01.2024 22:59, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> No theory "Explains" anything.
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> Depends on which Newton formula you use.
>> That makes no sense, since there will be only one applicable Newtonian
>> formula for any situation.
>
> Yes. It’s called potential and it’s GM/r. And it works. Otherwise relativity
> wouldn’t have borrowed it.

As the weak field approximation, GR derived it, as an approximation.
>
>>> 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 Galilean
>> transform where t' = t?
>>
> Yes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
> clock gains with resonance using GM/r.

Your second sentence contradicts the first. If time was the same
everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
the same everywhere! t'=t.
>
>> 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.

Since GR is a classical model (not quantum), the classical GR model uses
it just fine as an approximation.

> After all c^2 is just a number

No, it is not. It has dimensionality of length²/time².

> and GM/r is “Newtonian”

and a component of the Schwarzschild metric. It also has dimensions of
length²/time². Divide it by c² and get the Schwarzschild metric, GM/rc²,
a dimensionless number that's essentially the curvature of space
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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:
>> 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.

"Can't predict the clock's rate" is wrong. Newtonian physics predicts no
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.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:43:23 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

> "Can't predict the clock's rate" is wrong. Newtonian physics predicts no
> 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.

By piecing together a set of inconsistent assumptions, one
can "sort of" do things like obtain a pseudo-Newtonian
prediction of gravitational redshift. Years before
publication of the general theory, Einstein did precisely
that with various heuristic arguments, as I relate in the
following excerpts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Curvature_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#Equivalence_principle_argument_predicting_gravitational_red-_and_blueshift

When Lou or Lau try to claim that "Newton can predict the
clock gains with an accuracy almost as good as Relativity",
it does that only by picking and choosing concepts from
between separate, incompatible theories. Einstein knew
perfectly well that his pre-GR heuristic arguments were not
rigorous.