On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 5:17:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> And you forgot that on top of all your failed theories failed assumptions
> the only good chance we had to test, Cassini, didn’t test for refraction

A lie, as usual.

The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
the effect to about 1% or so.

Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
of the data.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 15:35:28 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 5:17:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > And you forgot that on top of all your failed theories failed assumptions
> > the only good chance we had to test, Cassini, didn’t test for refraction
> A lie, as usual.
>
> The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> the effect to about 1% or so.
>
> Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> accuracy to the measurements.

Your "measurement" are either fabricated or
worthless. Anyone can check GPS, the toys
you're using for them are matching your
insane religion OK but unusable for serious
measurements.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 14:35:28 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 5:17:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > And you forgot that on top of all your failed theories failed assumptions
> > the only good chance we had to test, Cassini, didn’t test for refraction
> A lie, as usual.
>
> The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> the effect to about 1% or so.
>
> Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
> to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
> frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
> plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
> of the data.

You are the one telling porkies. I cited the 2 pre eminent papers
on Cassini data from Bertotti. Because I actually read them. Unlike yourself. Show me the quotes and pages where you fantasise that Bertotti uses
Cassini data to prove that refraction can be ruled out. You can’t. Because he didn’t even try. And couldn’t have seeing as he admits the data streams were so compromised to even Properly test GR
Stick to publishing your fact free relativist fantasies on
wiki. Because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove refraction
cant model data from Cassini or the sun.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 14:35:28 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 5:17:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > > And you forgot that on top of all your failed theories failed assumptions
> > > the only good chance we had to test, Cassini, didn’t test for refraction
> > A lie, as usual.
> >
> > The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> > did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> > relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> > physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> > the effect to about 1% or so.
> >
> > Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> > accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
> > to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
> > frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
> > plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
> > of the data.
> You are the one telling porkies. I cited the 2 pre eminent papers
> on Cassini data from Bertotti. Because I actually read them. Unlike yourself. Show me the quotes and pages where you fantasise that Bertotti uses
> Cassini data to prove that refraction can be ruled out. You can’t.. Because he didn’t even try. And couldn’t have seeing as he admits the data streams were so compromised to even Properly test GR
> Stick to publishing your fact free relativist fantasies on
> wiki. Because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove refraction
> cant model data from Cassini or the sun.

I was basing my comments on Anderson et al.
Give me the Bertotti reference.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:30:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Let's make a thought experiment
> >> taken from the real world:
> Please read the following again.
> There are a lot of geostationary satellites orbiting the Earth,
> and everything I write below does happen in the real world.
>
> We KNOW how clocks behave in the vicinity of the Earth.
> It is in accordance with the predictions of GR, but this
> may be by coincidence, so maybe you have the right theory. :-J
>
> But in either case, THIS IS HOW THEY BEHAVE!
> >>
> >> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> >> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> >> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> >>
> >> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> >>
> >> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> >> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> >> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> >> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> >>
> >> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> >> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> >> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> >> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> >>
> >> Please answer:
>
> >
> > !! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.
> Right.
> Thou shall not have any other leader than Us!
> Be humble and show respect!
> > Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
> > question prove?
> There is no GR math above.
>
> We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
> fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).

I’m not sure where you get 1 + 5.3915E-10. I get 5.27e-10

> Isn't that what your theory predicts?

Not my theory. It’s classical physics. I just read about
how harmonic oscillators will vary natural resonant frequencies
when subjected to more or less external force.

> You know, the gravitational force at altitude 35796724 m
> is less than it is on the Earth, so the Cs atom vibrates
> faster because the pressure is less.
>
> It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
> So clock A advances during one rotation:
> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?

I’m not doing the maths here so I’ll take your word on the numbers
But I assume you are suggesting that the reason why clock B shows
more ticks is because it’s ticking faster because it’s altitude is 4.12r?
Due to weaker gravity in a classical model.
(I’m assuming you are ignoring the velocity component. )
After all if B ticks faster than A then it will get more ticks
per day. But you ignore an important fact. In a *classical model*
Both days are the same length in time . But clock B divides
24 hours into more ticks per day. In the same way that a rubidium
clock frequency ticks at a different rate than a caesium clock.
But both still agree on the length of the day. Presumably that’s
what a divisor does in an atomic clock. So in a GPS clock the divisor
has totake this into account .

>
> The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
> f₁ = 10 GHz.
> During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
> N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles
>
> The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
> during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.

Well technically it can’t because B isn’t in its line of site for 1/2 the day.
Also there is Doppler shifting but I assume we ignore all that.

> So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
>
527 actually, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying is A receives
a higher frequency of ticks from B than A’s own clock under
both models ignoring other effects.

> Since you not are stupid, you will now understand that
> a logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
> clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
> that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
>

I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
different theoretical reasons.

> Or don't you understand it?
> > That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
> > the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?
> You are not an idiot, so why are you pretending to be?
> Or are you not pretending?
> >> How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
> >> How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
> >>
> > Let me guess..umm ....
> > ...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
> > Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
> > How close was I ?
> > And more importantly what’s your point?
> But now you know the answer, don't you?
>
> This is my point:
> Since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
> fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
> you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
> factor (1 + δ).
If your calculations say they are the same and we ignore any other Effects like
v or Doppler or oblateness then I’ll take your word for it. As long as it’s
clear that in a classical model the clock ticks faster. But time and length
of day stays the same for both A and B
What’s your point?
Is this something to do with P-R?

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:57:14 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 14:35:28 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > > The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> > > did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> > > relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> > > physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> > > the effect to about 1% or so.
> > >
> > > Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> > > accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
> > > to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
> > > frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
> > > plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
> > > of the data.
> > You are the one telling porkies. I cited the 2 pre eminent papers
> > on Cassini data from Bertotti. Because I actually read them. Unlike yourself. Show me the quotes and pages where you fantasise that Bertotti uses
> > Cassini data to prove that refraction can be ruled out. You can’t. Because he didn’t even try. And couldn’t have seeing as he admits the data streams were so compromised to even Properly test GR
> > Stick to publishing your fact free relativist fantasies on
> > wiki. Because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove refraction
> > cant model data from Cassini or the sun.
> I was basing my comments on Anderson et al.
> Give me the Bertotti reference.

I don't know which Bertotti reference you read, but three that I
came across dealing with Cassini data all had detailed discussion
of signal dispersion due the solar corona and how these effects
were handled.

A test of general relativity using radio
links with the Cassini spacecraft
B. Bertotti1, L. Iess & P. Tortora
https://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/research/vanbaal/DECEASED/ART/gr-test.pdf
The main reason why the Doppler method has not been applied
before is the overwhelming noise contribution due to the solar
corona. The Cassini mission has overcome this hindrance with: (1)
high-frequency carrier waves in the Ka-band, in addition to the
X-band for standard operation; and (2) a multi-frequency link in
which three different phases are measured at the ground station.

Accurate light-time correction due to a gravitating mass
Neil Ashby and Bruno Bertotti
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.2705.pdf
Cassini’s 2002 experiment has implemented a third way to measure
γ, in which coherent microwave trains sent from the ground station
to the spacecraft (at that time about 7 AU far away) were transponded
back continuously. The use of high-frequency carriers (in Ka band, 34
and 32 GHz) and the combination with standard X-band carriers (about
8 GHz) allowed successful elimination of the main hindrance, dispersive
effects due to the solar corona traversed by the beam.

Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational deflection
Luciano Iess, Giacomo Giampieri, John D Anderson and Bruno Bertotti
http://tinyurl.com/2mtnam5w
Our preliminary analysis shows that the prospects for an almost
complete cancellation of the coronal plasma with the optimal
configuration (figure 3(a)) are very good. When the Ka band uplink
will not be available, a partial compensation for the plasma is
still possible using the backup link combination (shown in
figure 3(b)), more satisfactory than a single X-band link.

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 4:55:03 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 4:08:57 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 3:46:07 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > > On 1/14/2024 9:21 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 14 January 2024 at 03:41:54 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 1/13/2024 5:23 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > >>> On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > >>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > > >>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > > >>>> waves are received on the ground.
> > > >>>> How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
> > > >>> at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Rich
> > > >>>
> > > >> The Fe-57 atoms used in Pound-Rebka have a very, Very, VERY narrow
> > > >> frequency absorption band, and yes, it has to be correct to about 1 part
> > > >> in 10^12 or so. This is the same frequency it emits. The experiment uses
> > > >> this to detect how GR blueshift/redshift and Doppler shift affects the
> > > >> absorption.
> > > >
> > > > Ignore Volney. He’s trying to pretend that a narrow frequency absorption band
> > > > means that somehow a very small frequency offset from classical Doppler
> > > > shifting cannot explain the data. Talk about ridiculous logic based on fantasy
> > > > assumptions backed by zero science.
> > > > Although this 1+1=3 logic from relativists is predictable.
> > > >
> > > I see you can't follow along with the experiment. If the Doppler shift
> > > is exactly equal and opposite to the gravitational blueshift, the
> > > frequency will be exactly correct to be absorbed. That way they measure
> > > the blueshift, by the counteraction of the Doppler redshift.
> > You mean constant linear velocity?
> >
> > It is easier to hit the marks when they're fixed and sit still, ....
> >
> > Maybe you could glean from radar and sonar theory the ambiguity (function).
> Phaselock

Phaselock. Einstein sets his clock by it.

This is a pretty good thread.

Physics sure has been interesting these days, the giant background flushing noise and all.

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:48:03 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > >>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > >>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
> > >>>>>>
> > The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:
> >
> > |> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
> > Homolog wrote:
> > |>>
> > |>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
> > |>> are a fixed distance apart.
> > |>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> > |>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
> > |>>
> > |>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
> > |>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
> > |>>
> > |>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
> > |>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
> > |>>
> > |>> ...and so on and so forth.
> > The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m
> > >
> > > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > > out of nowhere.
> > There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> > magically out of nowhere".
> Under relativity...yes there is. Because according to many of your
> own quotes the gps clock runs at the same time as the earth clock
> doesnt it? Yet its frequency has increased by the time the earth
> reciever observed it? Is that correct.?
> If the GPS satelitte emits a lower frequency than that recieved.
> Then under classical physics that means an extra wave appears
> Out of nowhere. Now I DO UNDERSTAND that under the magic
> of relativity you have excuses about magic goblins. But those
> excuses are not acceptable under a classical model.
> So it’s a draw. Your magic says no waves appear out of nowhere.
> My physics say they do.
> > The point is that both the source and the observer
> > measure time with their own, local clocks.
> > Loosely expressed:
> > The observer's second is longer than the source's second,
> > so the 'extra wave' received by the observer is simply the first
> > wave in the source's next second.
> > > Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > Even if your explanation for the different rate of the clocks
> > was right (which it isn't),
> Maybe not if you don’t like physics.
> But so far I have not heard any evidence from you proving that
> Harmonic oscillators when subjected to additional external force
> will NOT increase their natural resonant frequency.

You just said that in space the cesium clock will run slower because of less force of gravity:
If that were so, they would require setting at a higher frequency to keep time in space as on Earth.
I think it works the other way around.

> > the result would be the same as
> > described above. So why do you call it "extra theoretical waves"
> > and "theoretical blue shift"? All the waves are real, and
> > the gravitational blue shift is real.
> >
> You forgot to take into account the fact that the redshifted
> light from the Doppler shift is only being emitted 1/2 the time.
> It vibrates * back and forth*. Lots of space in between.
> And let me assure you...if the source only moved towards
> the absorber at the same speed...the experiment would
> probably last less than a second. And there would be
> no more blue shifted waves received than were emitted.
> Unlike relativity which has extra magic waves appear
> out of nowhere.
> > The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
> > frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.
> >
> > And note: If the sender in the source is switched on and off
> > so that a limited number of cycles are emitted, then
> > the number of received cycles is always equal to the number
> > of emitted cycles.
> >
> > To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
> > taken from the real world:
> >
> > At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> > In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> > This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> >
> > The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> >
> > Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> > τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> > Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> > τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> >
> > The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> > f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> > Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> > f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> >
> > Please answer:
> !! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.
> Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
> question prove? That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
> the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?
> > How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
> > How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
> >
> Let me guess..umm ....
> ...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
> Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
> How close was I ?
> And more importantly what’s your point?

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 04:46:58 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:57:14 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 14:35:28 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > > The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> > > > did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> > > > relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> > > > physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> > > > the effect to about 1% or so.
> > > >
> > > > Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> > > > accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
> > > > to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
> > > > frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
> > > > plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
> > > > of the data.
> > > You are the one telling porkies. I cited the 2 pre eminent papers
> > > on Cassini data from Bertotti. Because I actually read them. Unlike yourself. Show me the quotes and pages where you fantasise that Bertotti uses
> > > Cassini data to prove that refraction can be ruled out. You can’t. Because he didn’t even try. And couldn’t have seeing as he admits the data streams were so compromised to even Properly test GR
> > > Stick to publishing your fact free relativist fantasies on
> > > wiki. Because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove refraction
> > > cant model data from Cassini or the sun.
> > I was basing my comments on Anderson et al.
> > Give me the Bertotti reference.
> I don't know which Bertotti reference you read, but three that I
> came across dealing with Cassini data all had detailed discussion
> of signal dispersion due the solar corona and how these effects
> were handled.
>
> A test of general relativity using radio

You're not testing your relativity, you're testing
an Euclid-based theory with some formulas
imported from The Shit. Being an idiot, you
can't distinguish, of course.

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 05:11:02 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:48:03 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> > > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > > >>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > > >>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:
> > >
> > > |> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
> > > Homolog wrote:
> > > |>>
> > > |>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
> > > |>> are a fixed distance apart.
> > > |>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> > > |>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
> > > |>>
> > > |>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
> > > |>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
> > > |>>
> > > |>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
> > > |>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
> > > |>>
> > > |>> ...and so on and so forth.
> > > The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m
> > > >
> > > > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > > > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > > > out of nowhere.
> > > There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> > > magically out of nowhere".
> > Under relativity...yes there is. Because according to many of your
> > own quotes the gps clock runs at the same time as the earth clock
> > doesnt it? Yet its frequency has increased by the time the earth
> > reciever observed it? Is that correct.?
> > If the GPS satelitte emits a lower frequency than that recieved.
> > Then under classical physics that means an extra wave appears
> > Out of nowhere. Now I DO UNDERSTAND that under the magic
> > of relativity you have excuses about magic goblins. But those
> > excuses are not acceptable under a classical model.
> > So it’s a draw. Your magic says no waves appear out of nowhere.
> > My physics say they do.
> > > The point is that both the source and the observer
> > > measure time with their own, local clocks.
> > > Loosely expressed:
> > > The observer's second is longer than the source's second,
> > > so the 'extra wave' received by the observer is simply the first
> > > wave in the source's next second.
> > > > Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > > > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > > > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > > > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > > > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > > > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > > Even if your explanation for the different rate of the clocks
> > > was right (which it isn't),
> > Maybe not if you don’t like physics.
> > But so far I have not heard any evidence from you proving that
> > Harmonic oscillators when subjected to additional external force
> > will NOT increase their natural resonant frequency.
> You just said that in space the cesium clock will run slower because of less force of gravity:
> If that were so, they would require setting at a higher frequency to keep time in space as on Earth.
> I think it works the other way around.

Yes sorry. I should have said more force, slower ticking.
Seeing as you seem to agree, I haven’t mentioned how a classical
resonance model can also explain the velocity component usually
ascribed to SR.
I couldn’t figure how to calculate or even model the v force
needed , or conversely subjected to, that the satelitte at radius 4.12
needed to be. If I wanted to try to explain clock gains classically.
So I just borrowed from the past centuries and improvised.
I noticed various reference saying something along the lines of
the force needed to keep any orbital radius had to be equal to
the force of gravity pushing it down.
So automatically I realised the velocity component was already
worked out using the same GM/r4.12 for the GPS gravitational
component.
Although you don’t subtract r4.12 from r . You just use r4.12
But I always got double the amount usually cited by
relativists for the velocity component.!?
Didnt make sense until I looked around and
found Leibniz 1/2 mv^2. Who knows why it’s 1/2 but I figured
Id use it seeing as it’s the formula for kinetic energy. Whatever the
f*** KE is. Seizing is like eskimos and snow, physicists like to call
the same thing by multiple names.
And anyways it works perfectly. Almost..
At which point you also have to fine tune it and
take off exactly 1/8.32 of the total to subtract out the ground observers
speed component
(where v-ground is 465.09m/s is 1/8.32 of v-sat 3873.57 m/s.)
The advantage to working out stuff like this yourself is you realise
that A) anyone can work out this sort of thing. You don’t have to
be a relativist. Odd considering none of the relativists actually worked it
out how to calculate clock gains themselves. They had to be taught it.
Although I did have the advantage of knowing what the total V component
had to be because I knew the G component minus the V component had
to match the observed daily total component of 442.5ms/day from NASA
Specs on the 1977 test.
But notice that’s how the relativists also made their “accurate” prediction too.
As Ashby paper admits the Didnt know what to expect until *after* they
got the observed 442.5 in 1977.
B) Einstein et al just borrowed all their calculations from
classical physics. And pretended-it had something do with time travelling
spacetime monkeys.

In fact even if Relativity had never been invented the original 1977 GPS
engineers wouldn’t have had a problem
Because I’m sure they would have allowed their divisor to be programmable
from ground control regardless, seeing as they knew it’s always best to be
prepared when in space. They then would have seen the slow clock gains....as
they did. And adjusted the divisor on the satelitte to compensate. As they did.
At which point theorists would have been called in to supply a theoretical
reason. And I bet your bottom dollar the first thing the theorists would have
blamed was harmonic oscillators. Ie..atomic resonance natural
frequencies responding to lower G force with higher frequencies.

> > > the result would be the same as
> > > described above. So why do you call it "extra theoretical waves"
> > > and "theoretical blue shift"? All the waves are real, and
> > > the gravitational blue shift is real.
> > >
> > You forgot to take into account the fact that the redshifted
> > light from the Doppler shift is only being emitted 1/2 the time.
> > It vibrates * back and forth*. Lots of space in between.
> > And let me assure you...if the source only moved towards
> > the absorber at the same speed...the experiment would
> > probably last less than a second. And there would be
> > no more blue shifted waves received than were emitted.
> > Unlike relativity which has extra magic waves appear
> > out of nowhere.
> > > The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
> > > frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.
> > >
> > > And note: If the sender in the source is switched on and off
> > > so that a limited number of cycles are emitted, then
> > > the number of received cycles is always equal to the number
> > > of emitted cycles.
> > >
> > > To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
> > > taken from the real world:
> > >
> > > At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> > > In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> > > This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> > >
> > > The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> > >
> > > Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> > > τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> > > Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> > > τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> > >
> > > The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> > > f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> > > Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> > > f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> > >
> > > Please answer:
> > !! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.
> > Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
> > question prove? That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
> > the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?
> > > How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
> > > How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
> > >
> > Let me guess..umm ....
> > ...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
> > Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
> > How close was I ?
> > And more importantly what’s your point?

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 03:46:58 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:57:14 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 14:35:28 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > > The original measurements of Shapiro delay conducted in the 1960s
> > > > did not attempt to actually *measure* the amount of refraction,
> > > > relying instead on reasonable estimates based on known solar
> > > > physics, because Shapiro et al. were content with merely verifying
> > > > the effect to about 1% or so.
> > > >
> > > > Cassini's mission added several additional decimal points of
> > > > accuracy to the measurements. To do so, the plasma contribution
> > > > to the delay needed to be calibrated using X and Ka band
> > > > frequency measurements. Because of equipment limitations, the
> > > > plasma contribution was completely accounted for for only part
> > > > of the data.
> > > You are the one telling porkies. I cited the 2 pre eminent papers
> > > on Cassini data from Bertotti. Because I actually read them. Unlike yourself. Show me the quotes and pages where you fantasise that Bertotti uses
> > > Cassini data to prove that refraction can be ruled out. You can’t. Because he didn’t even try. And couldn’t have seeing as he admits the data streams were so compromised to even Properly test GR
> > > Stick to publishing your fact free relativist fantasies on
> > > wiki. Because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove refraction
> > > cant model data from Cassini or the sun.
> > I was basing my comments on Anderson et al.
> > Give me the Bertotti reference.
> I don't know which Bertotti reference you read, but three that I
> came across dealing with Cassini data all had detailed discussion
> of signal dispersion due the solar corona and how these effects
> were handled.
>
> A test of general relativity using radio
> links with the Cassini spacecraft
> B. Bertotti1, L. Iess & P. Tortora
> https://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/research/vanbaal/DECEASED/ART/gr-test.pdf
> The main reason why the Doppler method has not been applied
> before is the overwhelming noise contribution due to the solar
> corona. The Cassini mission has overcome this hindrance with: (1)
> high-frequency carrier waves in the Ka-band, in addition to the
> X-band for standard operation; and (2) a multi-frequency link in
> which three different phases are measured at the ground station.
>
> Accurate light-time correction due to a gravitating mass
> Neil Ashby and Bruno Bertotti
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.2705.pdf
> Cassini’s 2002 experiment has implemented a third way to measure
> γ, in which coherent microwave trains sent from the ground station
> to the spacecraft (at that time about 7 AU far away) were transponded
> back continuously. The use of high-frequency carriers (in Ka band, 34
> and 32 GHz) and the combination with standard X-band carriers (about
> 8 GHz) allowed successful elimination of the main hindrance, dispersive
> effects due to the solar corona traversed by the beam.
>
> Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational deflection
> Luciano Iess, Giacomo Giampieri, John D Anderson and Bruno Bertotti
> http://tinyurl.com/2mtnam5w
> Our preliminary analysis shows that the prospects for an almost
> complete cancellation of the coronal plasma with the optimal
> configuration (figure 3(a)) are very good. When the Ka band uplink
> will not be available, a partial compensation for the plasma is
> still possible using the backup link combination (shown in
> figure 3(b)), more satisfactory than a single X-band link.

Yes as I pointed out I’ve carefully read the two Bertotti Cassini papers.
Many times in the last few years.
And notice at no time does he ever test the data to rule out for refraction..
In fact the data as you quote above is incomplete for the full two way
frequency analysis needed to even consider testing for refraction.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 5:20:52 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 03:46:58 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> And notice at no time does he ever test the data to rule out for refraction.
> In fact the data as you quote above is incomplete for the full two way
> frequency analysis needed to even consider testing for refraction.

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:40:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 5:20:52 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 03:46:58 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > And notice at no time does he ever test the data to rule out for refraction.
> > In fact the data as you quote above is incomplete for the full two way
> > frequency analysis needed to even consider testing for refraction.
> Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
> compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)

Yes Pal. Dream on.Now put your relativist fantasies aside...and give me the quote,
the page and the link to the paper.
Can’t do it ? Probably because Bertotti never tested for refraction.. Nor specified
it in his paper.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:40:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 5:20:52 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 03:46:58 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > > And notice at no time does he ever test the data to rule out for refraction.
> > > In fact the data as you quote above is incomplete for the full two way
> > > frequency analysis needed to even consider testing for refraction.
> > Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
> > compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)
> Yes Pal. Dream on.Now put your relativist fantasies aside...and give me the quote,
> the page and the link to the paper.
> Can’t do it ? Probably because Bertotti never tested for refraction. Nor specified
> it in his paper.

Idiot.

He did not use the specific word "refraction". He did use terms
such as "dispersive effects due to the solar corona" etc.
which ANYBODY should recognize includes refraction along with
other effects.

Note that his main focus in these papers was on a method which
was distinct from the Shapiro effect and preferably used a
somewhat different language of description.

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 15:08:13 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:40:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 5:20:52 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 03:46:58 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > > And notice at no time does he ever test the data to rule out for refraction.
> > > > In fact the data as you quote above is incomplete for the full two way
> > > > frequency analysis needed to even consider testing for refraction.
> > > Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
> > > compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)
> > Yes Pal. Dream on.Now put your relativist fantasies aside...and give me the quote,
> > the page and the link to the paper.
> > Can’t do it ? Probably because Bertotti never tested for refraction. Nor specified
> > it in his paper.
> Idiot.
>
> He did not use the specific word "refraction". He did use terms
> such as "dispersive effects due to the solar corona" etc.
> which ANYBODY should recognize includes refraction along with
> other effects.
>
> Note that his main focus in these papers was on a method which
> was distinct from the Shapiro effect and preferably used a
> somewhat different language of description.

Hilarious obfuscation from a fantasist.
In other words you cannot supply a single quote, page number
and cite a paper link to back up your claim that Bertotti or anyone
else tested Cassini data to see if refraction could be ruled out?
Thought not.
I imagine your edits on wiki Cassini pages refuting “refraction”
are about as fake and unsubstantiated as your post above.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:31:18 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 15:08:13 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:40:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > > > Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
> > > > compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)
> > > Yes Pal. Dream on.Now put your relativist fantasies aside...and give me the quote,
> > > the page and the link to the paper.
> > > Can’t do it ? Probably because Bertotti never tested for refraction. Nor specified
> > > it in his paper.
> > Idiot.
> >
> > He did not use the specific word "refraction". He did use terms
> > such as "dispersive effects due to the solar corona" etc.
> > which ANYBODY should recognize includes refraction along with
> > other effects.
> >
> > Note that his main focus in these papers was on a method which
> > was distinct from the Shapiro effect and preferably used a
> > somewhat different language of description.
> Hilarious obfuscation from a fantasist.
> In other words you cannot supply a single quote, page number
> and cite a paper link to back up your claim that Bertotti or anyone
> else tested Cassini data to see if refraction could be ruled out?
> Thought not.
> I imagine your edits on wiki Cassini pages refuting “refraction”
> are about as fake and unsubstantiated as your post above.

You are a TRIPLE IDIOT, in that you don't recognise
the distinction between
1) The deflection of light by the Sun
2) Shapiro effect (light delays)
3) Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational
deflection. (main topic of the Bertotti papers)

I have given you the links to complete papers and have
supplied quotes. It is up to YOU to understand what
you read. I can't help you there.

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 16:50:19 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> You are a TRIPLE IDIOT, in that you don't recognise
> the distinction between

You', on the other hand, are just a SINGLE IDIOT, but
you don't recognize some distinctions.anyway as
well.

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 15:50:19 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:31:18 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 15:08:13 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:40:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > > > Your reading comprehension is abysmal. They used the data to
> > > > > compensate for frequency changes AND deflection (i.e. refraction)
> > > > Yes Pal. Dream on.Now put your relativist fantasies aside...and give me the quote,
> > > > the page and the link to the paper.
> > > > Can’t do it ? Probably because Bertotti never tested for refraction. Nor specified
> > > > it in his paper.
> > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > He did not use the specific word "refraction". He did use terms
> > > such as "dispersive effects due to the solar corona" etc.
> > > which ANYBODY should recognize includes refraction along with
> > > other effects.
> > >
> > > Note that his main focus in these papers was on a method which
> > > was distinct from the Shapiro effect and preferably used a
> > > somewhat different language of description.
> > Hilarious obfuscation from a fantasist.
> > In other words you cannot supply a single quote, page number
> > and cite a paper link to back up your claim that Bertotti or anyone
> > else tested Cassini data to see if refraction could be ruled out?
> > Thought not.
> > I imagine your edits on wiki Cassini pages refuting “refraction”
> > are about as fake and unsubstantiated as your post above.
> You are a TRIPLE IDIOT, in that you don't recognise
> the distinction between
> 1) The deflection of light by the Sun
> 2) Shapiro effect (light delays)
> 3) Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational
> deflection. (main topic of the Bertotti papers)
>
> I have given you the links to complete papers and have
> supplied quotes. It is up to YOU to understand what
> you read. I can't help you there.

You supplied the links to the 2 Bertotti Cassini papers?!?
You didn’t even know about the Bertotti papers until I told you a few
posts ago.
And You didn’t supply any quotes either.
Oh sorry...I forgot... you quoted a couple of words!!! Ohmigod!
But forgot to tell us which page or paper you found your all important
all powerful two words.
Fact is Bertotti didn’t test for refraction. Because he didn’t have sufficient
data. And more importantly...no one knows what the refractive index
of the Corona, solar wind or solar atmosphere is. Seeing as every time
the latest measurements of the sun or solar wind or atmosphere are made
the current models can’t explain it.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501/
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/s107
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JA026005
https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/nasas-parker-solar-probe-and-the-curious-case-of-the-hot-corona/

Den 16.01.2024 21:12, skrev Lou:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:30:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
>>> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Let's make a thought experiment
>>>> taken from the real world:
>>>>
>>>> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
>>>> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
>>>> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
>>>>
>>>> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
>>>>
>>>> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
>>>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
>>>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
>>>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>>>>
>>>> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
>>>> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
>>>> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
>>>> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz

>>
>> We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
>> fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).

>
> I’m not sure where you get 1 + 5.3915E-10. I get 5.27e-10

I have shown you before how to calculate the rate
of a satellite in circular orbit relative to UTC.

dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc)

For a geostationary satellite we have:
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m

dτ/dt_utc = (1 + 5.391498E-10)

>> It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
>> So clock A advances during one rotation:
>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>> Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?

> I’m not doing the maths here so I’ll take your word on the numbers

> (I’m assuming you are ignoring the velocity component. )

Of course I don't ignore the velocity component.
A satellite in circular orbit is MOVING in the ECI-frame.

> After all if B ticks faster than A then it will get more ticks
> per day. But you ignore an important fact. In a *classical model*
> Both days are the same length in time . But clock B divides
> 24 hours into more ticks per day.

Good grief! :-D

Please answer these questions:
You are in a spaceship with no windows. You don't
know if you are in orbit, or is somewhere in outer space.
All you know is that you are weightless.
You have an atomic clock. You don't know if is a Cs, Rb or H-maser
clock, all you know is that it ticks out seconds as defined by SI.

Q #1. How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on that
atomic clock?
Q #2: How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on your
wristwatch ?
Q #3. You have a radio sender which according to your clock is
sending at the frequency 10 GHz. How many cycles does it
send during 24 hours?
Q #4: How can you know how many seconds on your clock it is
in 24 _real_ hours?

> But both still agree on the length of the day. Presumably that’s
> what a divisor does in an atomic clock.

Of course they don't.

Clock A measures the length of a sidereal day to be
86164.09050000000 s

Clock B measures the length of sidereal day to be
86164.09054645538 s

How can you say that they agree on the length of day?

>>
>> The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
>> f₁ = 10 GHz.
>> During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
>> N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles
>>
>> The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
>> during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.

>
> Well technically it can’t because B isn’t in its line of site for 1/2 the day.
> Also there is Doppler shifting but I assume we ignore all that.

You ARE confused, aren't you? :-D

The radio signal doesn't come from the Sun, it comes from
clock B which always is at the zenith as observed by A.

>
>> So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
>> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
>>

> 527 actually, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying is A receives
> a higher frequency of ticks from B than A’s own clock under
> both models ignoring other effects.

What are you trying to say?

They are not ignoring anything.

B is sending the frequency 10 GHz according to his own clock.
A is receiving the frequency 10.0000000053915 GHz according to
his own clock.

That's all.

>
>> Since you not are stupid, you will now understand that
>> a logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
>> clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
>> that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
>>
>
> I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
> After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
> different theoretical reasons.

You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.

>>
>> This is my point:
>> Since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
>> fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
>> you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
>> factor (1 + δ).
>
> If your calculations say they are the same and we ignore any other Effects like
> v or Doppler or oblateness then I’ll take your word for it.

You wouldn't have do take my word for it if you had understood it!
You obviously haven't.

> What’s your point?

Good grief! Still not got it!!!

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
| Given a situation where source and observer are separated
| by a fixed distance:
| | After one second, the source emits 1000000000000 waves and
| the observer receives 1000000000001 waves. .

The source emit the frequency 1000000000000 Hz
the observer receives the frequency 1000000000001 Hz

This is gravitational blue shift.

To this, you commented:
| It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your
gedanken
| the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear
magically
| out of nowhere.

In other words, you think gravitational blue shift is impossible.

So my point is still:
A logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).

So it's no mystery and no ghost are involved.

And since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
factor (1 + δ).

But you still don't understand so you still don't know.
Or do you?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 16.01.2024 21:12, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:30:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
> >>> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Let's make a thought experiment
> >>>> taken from the real world:
> >>>>
> >>>> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> >>>> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> >>>> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> >>>>
> >>>> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> >>>>
> >>>> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> >>>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> >>>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> >>>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164..09054645538 s
> >>>>
> >>>> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> >>>> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> >>>> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> >>>> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>
> >>
> >> We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
> >> fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).
>
> >
> > I’m not sure where you get 1 + 5.3915E-10. I get 5.27e-10
> I have shown you before how to calculate the rate
> of a satellite in circular orbit relative to UTC.
>
> dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc)
>
> For a geostationary satellite we have:
> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> c = 299792458 m/s
> p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
> r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
>
> dτ/dt_utc = (1 + 5.391498E-10)
> >> It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
> >> So clock A advances during one rotation:
> >> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> >> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> >> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> >> Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?
>
> > I’m not doing the maths here so I’ll take your word on the numbers
> > (I’m assuming you are ignoring the velocity component. )
> Of course I don't ignore the velocity component.
> A satellite in circular orbit is MOVING in the ECI-frame.
> > After all if B ticks faster than A then it will get more ticks
> > per day. But you ignore an important fact. In a *classical model*
> > Both days are the same length in time . But clock B divides
> > 24 hours into more ticks per day.
> Good grief! :-D
>
> Please answer these questions:
> You are in a spaceship with no windows. You don't
> know if you are in orbit, or is somewhere in outer space.
> All you know is that you are weightless.
> You have an atomic clock. You don't know if is a Cs, Rb or H-maser
> clock, all you know is that it ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
>
> Q #1. How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on that
> atomic clock?
> Q #2: How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on your
> wristwatch ?
> Q #3. You have a radio sender which according to your clock is
> sending at the frequency 10 GHz. How many cycles does it
> send during 24 hours?
> Q #4: How can you know how many seconds on your clock it is
> in 24 _real_ hours?
> > But both still agree on the length of the day. Presumably that’s
> > what a divisor does in an atomic clock.
> Of course they don't.
>
> Clock A measures the length of a sidereal day to be
> 86164.09050000000 s
>
> Clock B measures the length of sidereal day to be
> 86164.09054645538 s
>
> How can you say that they agree on the length of day?

You forgot. In a classical model....Satelittes and ground clocks do not have
different lengths of days.

> >>
> >> The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
> >> f₁ = 10 GHz.
> >> During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
> >> N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles
> >>
> >> The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
> >> during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.
>
> >
> > Well technically it can’t because B isn’t in its line of site for 1/2 the day.
> > Also there is Doppler shifting but I assume we ignore all that.
> You ARE confused, aren't you? :-D
>

> The radio signal doesn't come from the Sun, it comes from
> clock B which always is at the zenith as observed by A.
> >
> >> So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
> >> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> >> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
> >>
>
> > 527 actually, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying is A receives
> > a higher frequency of ticks from B than A’s own clock under
> > both models ignoring other effects.
> What are you trying to say?
>
> They are not ignoring anything.
>
> B is sending the frequency 10 GHz according to his own clock.
> A is receiving the frequency 10.0000000053915 GHz according to
> his own clock.
>
> That's all.
> >
> >> Since you not are stupid, you will now understand that
> >> a logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
> >> clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
> >> that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
> >>
> >
> > I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
> > After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
> > different theoretical reasons.
> You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
> that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
> that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.

In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical
model Clock gains are modelled using resonance. No gravitational
blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time.
Just the resonant frequencies of the atoms varies with altitude.

> >>
> >> This is my point:
> >> Since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
> >> fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
> >> you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
> >> factor (1 + δ).
> >
> > If your calculations say they are the same and we ignore any other Effects like
> > v or Doppler or oblateness then I’ll take your word for it.
> You wouldn't have do take my word for it if you had understood it!
> You obviously haven't.
>
> > What’s your point?
>
> Good grief! Still not got it!!!
>
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> | Given a situation where source and observer are separated
> | by a fixed distance:
> |
> | After one second, the source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> | the observer receives 1000000000001 waves. .
>
> The source emit the frequency 1000000000000 Hz
> the observer receives the frequency 1000000000001 Hz
>
> This is gravitational blue shift.
>
> To this, you commented:
> | It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your
> gedanken
> | the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> magically
> | out of nowhere.
> In other words, you think gravitational blue shift is impossible.
>
> So my point is still:
> A logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
> clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
> that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
> So it's no mystery and no ghost are involved.
>
> And since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
> fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
> you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
> factor (1 + δ).
> But you still don't understand so you still don't know.
> Or do you?
>
I understand you clearly. You think that a classical model incorporates
Relativity.
It doesn’t.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:48:45 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> Fact is Bertotti didn’t test for refraction. Because he didn’t have sufficient
> data. And more importantly...no one knows what the refractive index
> of the Corona, solar wind or solar atmosphere is. Seeing as every time
> the latest measurements of the sun or solar wind or atmosphere are made
> the current models can’t explain it.
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501/
> https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/s107
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JA026005
> https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/nasas-parker-solar-probe-and-the-curious-case-of-the-hot-corona/

You ***REALLY*** don't know what you are talking about.
Nor do you have anything more than the vaguest understanding
of what you read.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:48:45 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > Fact is Bertotti didn’t test for refraction. Because he didn’t have sufficient
> > data. And more importantly...no one knows what the refractive index
> > of the Corona, solar wind or solar atmosphere is. Seeing as every time
> > the latest measurements of the sun or solar wind or atmosphere are made
> > the current models can’t explain it.
> > https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501/
> > https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/s107
> > https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JA026005
> > https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/nasas-parker-solar-probe-and-the-curious-case-of-the-hot-corona/
> You ***REALLY*** don't know what you are talking about.
> Nor do you have anything more than the vaguest understanding
> of what you read.

Are you sure that's upper case enough and has enough asterisks?

Also, check and make sure that "saying" and "talking about" are or aren't different things.

Then, are you challenging my literacy or the material?

I don't believe anything I read, it's a sample.

Some are better than others.

Quanta magazine is puff though, what you want is adsabs.

I read Lou for what he writes and know precession only added up about half right,
which is better than nothing, so your paint-canning his opinion paint-cans yours.
It's a fallacious thing, though I suppose you're practiced at it.

World of the one-eyed man and all, ....

Toodles

Phaselock: Einstein sets his clock by it.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:14:58 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 16.01.2024 21:12, skrev Lou:
> > > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:30:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >> Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
> > >>> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>> Let's make a thought experiment
> > >>>> taken from the real world:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> > >>>> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> > >>>> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> > >>>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> > >>>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> > >>>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> > >>>> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> > >>>> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> > >>>> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> >
> > >>
> > >> We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
> > >> fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).
> >
> > >
> > > I’m not sure where you get 1 + 5.3915E-10. I get 5.27e-10
> > I have shown you before how to calculate the rate
> > of a satellite in circular orbit relative to UTC.
> >
> > dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc)
> >
> > For a geostationary satellite we have:
> > GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> > c = 299792458 m/s
> > p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
> > r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
> >
> > dτ/dt_utc = (1 + 5.391498E-10)
> > >> It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
> > >> So clock A advances during one rotation:
> > >> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> > >> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> > >> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164..09054645538 s
> > >> Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?
> >
> > > I’m not doing the maths here so I’ll take your word on the numbers
> > > (I’m assuming you are ignoring the velocity component. )
> > Of course I don't ignore the velocity component.
> > A satellite in circular orbit is MOVING in the ECI-frame.
> > > After all if B ticks faster than A then it will get more ticks
> > > per day. But you ignore an important fact. In a *classical model*
> > > Both days are the same length in time . But clock B divides
> > > 24 hours into more ticks per day.
> > Good grief! :-D
> >
> > Please answer these questions:
> > You are in a spaceship with no windows. You don't
> > know if you are in orbit, or is somewhere in outer space.
> > All you know is that you are weightless.
> > You have an atomic clock. You don't know if is a Cs, Rb or H-maser
> > clock, all you know is that it ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
> >
> > Q #1. How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on that
> > atomic clock?
> > Q #2: How many seconds would it be in 24 hours, as shown on your
> > wristwatch ?
> > Q #3. You have a radio sender which according to your clock is
> > sending at the frequency 10 GHz. How many cycles does it
> > send during 24 hours?
> > Q #4: How can you know how many seconds on your clock it is
> > in 24 _real_ hours?
> > > But both still agree on the length of the day. Presumably that’s
> > > what a divisor does in an atomic clock.
> > Of course they don't.
> >
> > Clock A measures the length of a sidereal day to be
> > 86164.09050000000 s
> >
> > Clock B measures the length of sidereal day to be
> > 86164.09054645538 s
> >
> > How can you say that they agree on the length of day?
> You forgot. In a classical model....Satelittes and ground clocks do not have
> different lengths of days.
> > >>
> > >> The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
> > >> f₁ = 10 GHz.
> > >> During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
> > >> N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles
> > >>
> > >> The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
> > >> during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.
> >
> > >
> > > Well technically it can’t because B isn’t in its line of site for 1/2 the day.
> > > Also there is Doppler shifting but I assume we ignore all that.
> > You ARE confused, aren't you? :-D
> >
>
> > The radio signal doesn't come from the Sun, it comes from
> > clock B which always is at the zenith as observed by A.
> > >
> > >> So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
> > >> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> > >> f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
> > >>
> >
> > > 527 actually, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying is A receives
> > > a higher frequency of ticks from B than A’s own clock under
> > > both models ignoring other effects.
> > What are you trying to say?
> >
> > They are not ignoring anything.
> >
> > B is sending the frequency 10 GHz according to his own clock.
> > A is receiving the frequency 10.0000000053915 GHz according to
> > his own clock.
> >
> > That's all.
> > >
> > >> Since you not are stupid, you will now understand that
> > >> a logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
> > >> clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
> > >> that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
> > >>
> > >
> > > I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
> > > After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
> > > different theoretical reasons.
> > You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
> > that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
> > that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.
> In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
> Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical
> model Clock gains are modelled using resonance. No gravitational
> blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time.
> Just the resonant frequencies of the atoms varies with altitude.
> > >>
> > >> This is my point:
> > >> Since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
> > >> fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
> > >> you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
> > >> factor (1 + δ).
> > >
> > > If your calculations say they are the same and we ignore any other Effects like
> > > v or Doppler or oblateness then I’ll take your word for it.
> > You wouldn't have do take my word for it if you had understood it!
> > You obviously haven't.
> >
> > > What’s your point?
> >
> > Good grief! Still not got it!!!
> >
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > | Given a situation where source and observer are separated
> > | by a fixed distance:
> > |
> > | After one second, the source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> > | the observer receives 1000000000001 waves. .
> >
> > The source emit the frequency 1000000000000 Hz
> > the observer receives the frequency 1000000000001 Hz
> >
> > This is gravitational blue shift.
> >
> > To this, you commented:
> > | It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your
> > gedanken
> > | the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> > magically
> > | out of nowhere.
> > In other words, you think gravitational blue shift is impossible.
> >
> > So my point is still:
> > A logically inevitable consequence of the fact that
> > clock B runs fast by (1 + δ) relative to UTC (and clock A) is
> > that the gravitational blue shift is the same factor (1 + δ).
> > So it's no mystery and no ghost are involved.
> >
> > And since you correctly claim that clocks at high altitude run
> > fast by some factor (1 + δ) relative to clocks on the ground,
> > you know that the gravitational blue shift must be the same
> > factor (1 + δ).
> > But you still don't understand so you still don't know.
> > Or do you?
> >
> I understand you clearly. You think that a classical model incorporates
> Relativity.
> It doesn’t.

On 1/17/2024 6:14 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 21:15:47 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 16.01.2024 21:12, skrev Lou:

>>> I haven’t crunched your numbers but that sounds reasonable.
>>> After all both models predict the same magnitude but for
>>> different theoretical reasons.

>> You don't have to crunch any numbers to UNDERSTAND
>> that blue shift is an inevitable consequence of
>> that clock B runs faster than clock A relative to UTC.
>
> In relativity yes. But not in a classical model.
> Gravitational Blueshifting is a relativist assumption, but in a classical
> model Clock gains are modelled using resonance.

But you just said that in a "classical model" (I'll assume you meant
Newtonian model here, but see below) time lengths are the same.

> You forgot. In a classical model....Satelittes and ground clocks do not have
> different lengths of days.

So how can there be any clock gains if the times are always the same?
You contradict yourself!

> No gravitational
> blueshifting is needed. Both sat and ground clocks run at the same time.

There, you said it again, the clocks run at the same rate, so clock
gains are impossible.

Make up your mind!

> I understand you clearly. You think that a classical model incorporates
> Relativity.
> It doesn’t.

You are forgetting, relativity *is* a classical model! It's not quantum
and well over 100 years old as well, so classical.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:16:32 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 05:11:02 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:48:03 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> > > > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > > > >>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > > > >>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:
> > > >
> > > > |> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
> > > > Homolog wrote:
> > > > |>>
> > > > |>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
> > > > |>> are a fixed distance apart.
> > > > |>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> > > > |>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
> > > > |>>
> > > > |>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
> > > > |>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
> > > > |>>
> > > > |>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
> > > > |>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
> > > > |>>
> > > > |>> ...and so on and so forth.
> > > > The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m
> > > > >
> > > > > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > > > > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > > > > out of nowhere.
> > > > There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> > > > magically out of nowhere".
> > > Under relativity...yes there is. Because according to many of your
> > > own quotes the gps clock runs at the same time as the earth clock
> > > doesnt it? Yet its frequency has increased by the time the earth
> > > reciever observed it? Is that correct.?
> > > If the GPS satelitte emits a lower frequency than that recieved.
> > > Then under classical physics that means an extra wave appears
> > > Out of nowhere. Now I DO UNDERSTAND that under the magic
> > > of relativity you have excuses about magic goblins. But those
> > > excuses are not acceptable under a classical model.
> > > So it’s a draw. Your magic says no waves appear out of nowhere.
> > > My physics say they do.
> > > > The point is that both the source and the observer
> > > > measure time with their own, local clocks.
> > > > Loosely expressed:
> > > > The observer's second is longer than the source's second,
> > > > so the 'extra wave' received by the observer is simply the first
> > > > wave in the source's next second.
> > > > > Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > > > > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > > > > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > > > > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > > > > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > > > > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance..
> > > > Even if your explanation for the different rate of the clocks
> > > > was right (which it isn't),
> > > Maybe not if you don’t like physics.
> > > But so far I have not heard any evidence from you proving that
> > > Harmonic oscillators when subjected to additional external force
> > > will NOT increase their natural resonant frequency.
> > You just said that in space the cesium clock will run slower because of less force of gravity:
> > If that were so, they would require setting at a higher frequency to keep time in space as on Earth.
> > I think it works the other way around.
> Yes sorry. I should have said more force, slower ticking.
> Seeing as you seem to agree, I haven’t mentioned how a classical
> resonance model can also explain the velocity component usually
> ascribed to SR.
> I couldn’t figure how to calculate or even model the v force
> needed , or conversely subjected to, that the satelitte at radius 4.12
> needed to be. If I wanted to try to explain clock gains classically.
> So I just borrowed from the past centuries and improvised.
> I noticed various reference saying something along the lines of
> the force needed to keep any orbital radius had to be equal to
> the force of gravity pushing it down.
> So automatically I realised the velocity component was already
> worked out using the same GM/r4.12 for the GPS gravitational
> component.
> Although you don’t subtract r4.12 from r . You just use r4.12
> But I always got double the amount usually cited by
> relativists for the velocity component.!?
> Didnt make sense until I looked around and
> found Leibniz 1/2 mv^2. Who knows why it’s 1/2 but I figured
> Id use it seeing as it’s the formula for kinetic energy. Whatever the
> f*** KE is. Seizing is like eskimos and snow, physicists like to call
> the same thing by multiple names.
> And anyways it works perfectly. Almost..
> At which point you also have to fine tune it and
> take off exactly 1/8.32 of the total to subtract out the ground observers
> speed component
> (where v-ground is 465.09m/s is 1/8.32 of v-sat 3873.57 m/s.)
> The advantage to working out stuff like this yourself is you realise
> that A) anyone can work out this sort of thing. You don’t have to
> be a relativist. Odd considering none of the relativists actually worked it
> out how to calculate clock gains themselves. They had to be taught it.
> Although I did have the advantage of knowing what the total V component
> had to be because I knew the G component minus the V component had
> to match the observed daily total component of 442.5ms/day from NASA
> Specs on the 1977 test.
> But notice that’s how the relativists also made their “accurate” prediction too.
> As Ashby paper admits the Didnt know what to expect until *after* they
> got the observed 442.5 in 1977.
> B) Einstein et al just borrowed all their calculations from
> classical physics. And pretended-it had something do with time travelling
> spacetime monkeys.
>
> In fact even if Relativity had never been invented the original 1977 GPS
> engineers wouldn’t have had a problem
> Because I’m sure they would have allowed their divisor to be programmable
> from ground control regardless, seeing as they knew it’s always best to be
> prepared when in space. They then would have seen the slow clock gains.....as
> they did. And adjusted the divisor on the satelitte to compensate. As they did.
> At which point theorists would have been called in to supply a theoretical
> reason. And I bet your bottom dollar the first thing the theorists would have
> blamed was harmonic oscillators. Ie..atomic resonance natural
> frequencies responding to lower G force with higher frequencies.
> > > > the result would be the same as
> > > > described above. So why do you call it "extra theoretical waves"
> > > > and "theoretical blue shift"? All the waves are real, and
> > > > the gravitational blue shift is real.
> > > >
> > > You forgot to take into account the fact that the redshifted
> > > light from the Doppler shift is only being emitted 1/2 the time.
> > > It vibrates * back and forth*. Lots of space in between.
> > > And let me assure you...if the source only moved towards
> > > the absorber at the same speed...the experiment would
> > > probably last less than a second. And there would be
> > > no more blue shifted waves received than were emitted.
> > > Unlike relativity which has extra magic waves appear
> > > out of nowhere.
> > > > The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
> > > > frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.
> > > >
> > > > And note: If the sender in the source is switched on and off
> > > > so that a limited number of cycles are emitted, then
> > > > the number of received cycles is always equal to the number
> > > > of emitted cycles.
> > > >
> > > > To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
> > > > taken from the real world:
> > > >
> > > > At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> > > > In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> > > > This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
> > > >
> > > > The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
> > > >
> > > > Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> > > > τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> > > > Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> > > > τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
> > > >
> > > > The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> > > > f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> > > > Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> > > > f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
> > > >
> > > > Please answer:
> > > !! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists..
> > > Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
> > > question prove? That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
> > > the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?
> > > > How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
> > > > How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
> > > >
> > > Let me guess..umm ....
> > > ...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
> > > Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
> > > How close was I ?
> > > And more importantly what’s your point?
I don't yet understand how you do it, but I am working on it so thanks for your explanation.
It is good to hear that you concur that cesium clocks respond to lower gravity with higher frequency.
I don't think there is any SR time dilation to subtract.
I am sure anything correct about it was borrowed and not the product of relativity.