On January 21, Tom Roberts wrote:
> The words "one second" are defined to mean "the duration of 9192631770
> cycles of the unperturbed hyperfine ground-state transition of the
> Cs-133 atom".

What's a duration?

--
Rich

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > >
> > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> How long do you got?
>
> Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?

There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
is all yours.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > > >
> > > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > How long do you got?
> >
> > Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?
> There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
> you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
> for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
> is all yours.

If you don't know there are at least three definitions of continuity,
continuous domains, that each model the linear continuum, "real numbers",
then how can you expect to understand the quantum and analog?

(Not that most mathematicians know this either.)

Don't worry, it was simplified to "electron physics" after the "ultraviolet catastrophe",
to keep things sort of reduced to elementary algebra.

Then these days we sort of have an "infrared catastrophe", bringing it back together
again, putting the infinity back in eternity.

Yeah, fall gravity has a great mechanism explained same as nuclear force,
then the charge and kinetic are very neat about charged massy particles,
force carriers for each other about the magnetic, and the, "weak", or life-time,
and fleeting, the light-like, make a sort recursive dichotomy of a theory of
sum potentials like Aristotle used to say about potency, according to Galileo,
helping explain why Einstein has one theory of relativity, and it's general..

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 7:17:46 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Everybody in this thread is over-thinking this and getting bogged down
> in irrelevancies. In particular, the meaning of "time" is not important
> -- everything can be, and should be, expressed in terms of clock
> readings, because they are what is measured.
> On 1/20/24 11:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > The second does not change with altitude of a clock above or below
> > the geoid.
> Yes.
>
> The words "one second" are defined to mean "the duration of 9192631770
> cycles of the unperturbed hyperfine ground-state transition of the
> Cs-133 atom". This definition applies anywhere and anywhen, but must
> only be used locally (i.e. the Cs-133 atom must be co-located and
> co-moving with whatever is being timed).
> > Our *observations* of a clock's readings, however, *does* depend on
> > the gravitational potential difference between the clock's position
> > and our own.
> Note we simply cannot observe a clock that is not co-located with us.
> What we observe are SIGNALS from the clock, usually EM signals (light,
> radio). It should be obvious that one must account for how those signals
> are measured, and how that varies with distance, location, and relative
> motion, as the signals are NOT the distant clock.
>
> It should also be obvious that a clock can only measure time intervals
> between events on its worldline. So to model how a clock measures the
> intervals between signals from a distant clock, those signals must be
> geometrically projected onto the measuring clock's worldline.
>
> [This geometrical projection is in spacetime -- one cannot
> avoid that when discussing clocks located at different
> positions in space, or moving relative to each other.]
>
> For the case of a standard clock on a GPS satellite emitting radio
> signals at 10.22999999543 MHz, those signals are measured on earth's
> geoid to arrive at 10.23000000000 MHz (by a standard clock located
> there). General Relativity models such measurements very accurately, as
> due solely to that geometrical projection.
>
> [In GR, clocks, signals, and all other physical processes
> are not affected by gravity (spacetime curvature). But
> geometry is affected, as are geometrical projections.]
>
> Tom Roberts
If that is how you define a second then seconds are different at different altitudes because the cesium frequency differs with altitude. Yet they are not. A second is an abstraction and is the same everywhere in reality.

That is not the frequency of GPS radio signals. "Now there are three civilian GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz" - https://gisresources.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-gps-l1-l2-and-l5-frequencies/

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:02:17 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> >
> > The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> > One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> > At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
> > And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
> > faster.
> Right!
>
> To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
>
> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> or the GPS wouldn't work.
>
> Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
> in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
>
> Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
There is a lot of talking past each other, e.g.:

"No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
is not a normal clock.
It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
It runs too slow to be a normal clock."

No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as a clock on Earth. Skeptics know that but you think you have to explain it:

"To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).

It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
or the GPS wouldn't work."

So, why adjust again for the gravitational blue shift? Or adjust for the radio signal as Roberts asserts below?

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 04:10:24 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > > > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > > How long do you got?
> > >
> > > Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?
> > There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
> > you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
> > for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
> > is all yours.
> If you don't know there are at least three definitions of continuity,
> continuous domains, that each model the linear continuum, "real numbers",
> then how can you expect to understand the quantum and analog?

And how about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
Yhere nust be Great Mystical Mechanism, because ...?

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 05:18:59 UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:02:17 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> > >
> > > The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> > > One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> > > At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
> > > And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
> > > faster.
> > Right!
> >
> > To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> > to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
> >
> > It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> > or the GPS wouldn't work.
> >
> > Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
> > in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
> >
> > Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> There is a lot of talking past each other, e.g.:
> "No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
> is not a normal clock.
> It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
> It runs too slow to be a normal clock."
> No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as a clock on Earth. Skeptics know that but you think you have to explain it:
> "To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
>
> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> or the GPS wouldn't work."
> So, why adjust again for the gravitational blue shift? Or adjust for the radio signal as Roberts asserts below?

Face it, physicists, face it, wannabe physicists - time and clocks
are not toy gadgets for your cheerful "let's explain" game.

Den 21.01.2024 12:41, skrev Lou:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:13:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
>>>
>>> Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
>>> up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.

When a normal clock say a second has passed, then
the time one second has passed irrespective of the clock's
position and state of motion.

Read the following again:

>> Here is the definition of a second we use in the real world:
>> "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value
>> of the cesium frequency ∆ν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
>> hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to
>> be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is
>> equal to s⁻¹."
>>
>> All normal clocks which use second as the time unit
>> are build according to this definition.
>> The difference between your wristwatch and an atomic
>> clock is only the precision of the clock.
>>
>> So yes, all normal clocks run at their normal rate
>> and ticks out a second per second everywhere and always.
>>
>> This is the DEFINITION of "time" as used by engineers
>> and physicist in the real world.

< snip irrelevant talk about adjusted GPS clocks>

Because:

>> We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!
>>
>>
>> The rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock in circular orbit is:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Δf/f = dτ/dt_utc - 1 = - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc
>>
>> where:
>> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
>> c = 299792458 m/s
>> δutc = 6.96927E-10
>> (1 + δutc) is the rate of UTC relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time
>>
>> Normal clock in geostationary orbit:
>> ------------------------------------
>> p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
>> r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
>>
>> A normal clock in geostationary orbit runs fast by
>> Δf/f = 5.391498E-10
>> relative to UTC.
>>

You snipped my question:

|> Previously you claimed that "the classical model" predicted
|> the same as GR for the rate of clocks "up there".
|>
|> Now you seem to have changed your mind.
|>
|> So please tell me:
|> What is the rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock
|> in geostationary orbit?
|>
|> Is it (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC as we know is correct,
|> or is it something else?

>
>
> Note that the predictions by a non relativistic classical model that
> resonant frequencies of atomic clocks will be faster at higher altitudes
> are also thoroughly confirmed by GPS,Galileo and GLONASS.

I take this to mean that your answer to my question above is:

The "non relativistic classical model" predicts that the rate relative
to UTC of a normal atomic clock at higher altitudes will be the same
as the thoroughly confirmed prediction of GR.

We can then continue where we previously stopped :

Since you agree that the clock in geostationary orbit will
run fast by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC,
you must also agree to the following:

Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
This means that clock A will measure the duration of one rotation
of the Earth to be:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)

Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative
to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s

The geostationary satellite sends a signal with frequency
f₁ = 10 GHz as measured by clock B.
The number of cycles sent during one orbit is:
N = τ₁⋅f₁ = 861640905464553.8 cycles

Since A during one rotation of the Earth will receive all the N
cycles emitted by B during one orbit, he will measure the received
frequency to be:
f₀ = N/τ₀ = 10.0000000053915 GHz

f₀ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
This is called gravitational blue shift which is an inevitable
consequence of the fact that clocks "up there" run fast relative to UTC.
AND it is observed in the real world.

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

Do you now agree to the above?
Or have you changed your mind again?
Doesn't your "classical model" predict that clock B will run fast
relative to UTC?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 12:11:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 21.01.2024 12:41, skrev Lou:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:13:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> >>>
> >>> Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
> >>> up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.
> When a normal clock say a second has passed, then
> the time one second has passed irrespective of the clock's
> position and state of motion.

It's just that living in your gedanken delusions you've
completely lost any clue of what is normal.

> Because:
> >> We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!

Oh yes, WE are. But you're not., poor delusional halfbrain.

Den 21.01.2024 12:46, skrev Lou:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 11:02:17 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
>>>
>>> The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
>>> One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
>>> At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
>>> And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
>>> faster.
>> Right!
>>
>> To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
>> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
>>
>> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
>> or the GPS wouldn't work.
>>
>> Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
>> in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
>>
>
> And thanks for agreeing with me that this is also a confirmation of
> the non relativistic classical model prediction. Seeing as you just admitted that
> the GPS orbit clocks atoms frequency is faster per second then when on the ground
> and needs to be corrected by an onboard divisor.
>

It is interesting to see that you now claim that your
"non relativistic classical model" predicts the same as
"the relativistic model GR".

If your "non relativistic classical model" predicts exactly
the same as GR for an experiment, then a confirmation of GR will
also be a confirmation of your "non relativistic classical model".
Obviously!

I will not ask you to show how you from your "non relativistic
classical model" can calculate that a clock in a geostationary
satellite will run at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC.
We both know that you can't do that.

Or maybe you claim that the GR derivation from the Schwarzschild
metric really is your "non relativistic classical model" because
it contains the Newtonian gravitational potential GM/r? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 12:44:25 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> It is interesting to see that you now claim that your
> "non relativistic classical model" predicts the same as
> "the relativistic model GR".

Oh, it's not the same at all, poor halfbrain.
Your Shit is predicting identical clocks desynchronizing
while a sane model preticts non-identical clocks.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:14:58 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 04:10:24 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > > > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > > > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > > > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > > > > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > > > How long do you got?
> > > >
> > > > Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?
> > > There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
> > > you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
> > > for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
> > > is all yours.
> > If you don't know there are at least three definitions of continuity,
> > continuous domains, that each model the linear continuum, "real numbers",
> > then how can you expect to understand the quantum and analog?
> And how about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> Yhere nust be Great Mystical Mechanism, because ...?

It's simple, that fall in space and fall in time balance,
fall in time being "time" and fall in space being "gravity".

Maybe you should learn about the hologram or representing a
three-dimensional continuum in one continuum in the infinitesimals
and infinities of it, or a great circle a continuum. If you've heard of
superstring theory and making three dimensions for each dimension
to tent them out, the hologram makes one dimension for three
dimensions, and tents them in!

For principles of "least action", is basically that "the entire continuum
of a space-time about its contents is a minimal resource", about then
why there's an explanation that fall gravity results that massy bodies
occlude other massy bodies their falling alone, thus that they fall together.
(With usually that being m1 >> m2 for 1G but exactly as so.)

So, it's kind of like a designer, said, "you know, I might feel like being lazy,
so I'm going to make the laws of the universe the same everywhere,
and have one simple continuous hologram, geometrical, have it all
fall together".

It's simplest, it's least, the most efficient and most paucity, though,
here the model has a sort of continuum mechanics about the whole thing.

It's like "superstring theory: now up to 26 dimensions, tented all out,
"3, x3, m+1, +1, +1, =12, x2, +1, +1, = 26 dimensions in a model of string theory",
but really that's just the quasi-invariance about the quasi-invariant measure
of the continuous mappings of the continuous functions of the conformal
unitary after orthogonal continuous manifold of a continuum.

All one thing, ....

You did ask for a "theory of everything", right?

G-d only had to roll one die, once, and it's still rolling.

On 1/21/2024 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:02:17 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
>>>
>>> The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
>>> One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
>>> At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
>>> And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
>>> faster.
>> Right!
>>
>> To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
>> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
>>
>> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
>> or the GPS wouldn't work.
>>
>> Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
>> in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
> There is a lot of talking past each other, e.g.:
>
> "No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
> is not a normal clock.
> It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
> It runs too slow to be a normal clock."
>
> No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as a clock on Earth.

Well, yeah, that's the gravitational blueshift of the transmitted
signal. A blueshift increases the received frequency. They design the
system so that the lower frequencies used on the satellite are EXACTLY
compensated by the blueshift.

> Skeptics know that but you think you have to explain it:

You seem unable to understand it, so we try to explain it.
>
> "To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
>
> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> or the GPS wouldn't work."

That's been known since the NTS-2 prototype was launched. They ran for
20 days with no compensation (Newton mode, I call it) and it didn't work
correctly. The received frequencies were too high, for one. Then they
ran it in "Einstein mode" (clock frequency reduced to what GR predicts,
1-4.4647E-10) and it worked fine.
>
> So, why adjust again for the gravitational blue shift? Or adjust for the radio signal as Roberts asserts below?

What do you mean "again"? It is adjusted once and only once. If you ask
that question, you don't understand what's going on.

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 19:17:20 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:14:58 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday 22 January 2024 at 04:10:24 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > > > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > > > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > > > > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > > > > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > > > > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > > > > > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > > > > How long do you got?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?
> > > > There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
> > > > you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
> > > > for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
> > > > is all yours.
> > > If you don't know there are at least three definitions of continuity,
> > > continuous domains, that each model the linear continuum, "real numbers",
> > > then how can you expect to understand the quantum and analog?
> > And how about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > Yhere nust be Great Mystical Mechanism, because ...?
> It's simple, that fall in space and fall in time balance,
> fall in time being "time" and fall in space being "gravity".
>
> Maybe you should learn about the hologram or representing a

Or maybe you should stop mumbling and answer the question.
But it seems no hope for that.

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 19:23:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/21/2024 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:02:17 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> >>>
> >>> The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> >>> One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> >>> At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
> >>> And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
> >>> faster.
> >> Right!
> >>
> >> To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> >> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
> >>
> >> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> >> or the GPS wouldn't work.
> >>
> >> Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
> >> in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).
> >>
> >> Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> > There is a lot of talking past each other, e.g.:
> >
> > "No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
> > is not a normal clock.
> > It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
> > It runs too slow to be a normal clock."
> >
> > No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as a clock on Earth.
> Well, yeah, that's the gravitational blueshift of the transmitted
> signal. A blueshift increases the received frequency. They design the
> system so that the lower frequencies used on the satellite are EXACTLY
> compensated by the blueshift.
> > Skeptics know that but you think you have to explain it:
> You seem unable to understand it, so we try to explain it.
> >
> > "To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted
> > to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).
> >
> > It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,
> > or the GPS wouldn't work."
> That's been known since the NTS-2 prototype was launched. They ran for
> 20 days with no compensation (Newton mode, I call it)

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic scum in
general and from stupid Mike in special; it was actually
ISO/proper time mode of your idiot gurus.

> and it didn't work correctly.

Of course it didn't, common sense was warning.

Volney wrote:

> On 1/21/2024 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> "No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
>> is not a normal clock. It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per
>> seconds. It runs too slow to be a normal clock."
>> No, it is set at a lower frequency to run exactly the same in orbit as
>> a clock on Earth.
>
> Well, yeah, that's the gravitational blueshift of the transmitted
> signal. A blueshift increases the received frequency. They design the
> system so that the lower frequencies used on the satellite are EXACTLY
> compensated by the blueshift.

agree, but from violet a blueshift is a decrease in the received
frequency. And not true, it's 𝗮𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 which 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 a
blueshift. Not 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙗𝙡𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙛𝙩_𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:48 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 19:17:20 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:14:58 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Monday 22 January 2024 at 04:10:24 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 23:02:12 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 1:46:24 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 19:06:52 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > > > > > > > > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > > > > > > > > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > > > > > > > > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > > > > > > > > > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> > > > > > > > > What mechanism? Any special reason to
> > > > > > > > > believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?
> > > > > > > > Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
> > > > > > > > theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
> > > > > > > > with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.
> > > > > > > How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > > > > > How long do you got?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?
> > > > > There is nothing natural in an unit. More generally:
> > > > > you're trying to frame the nature into the responsibility
> > > > > for your mumble, but the responsibility for your mumble
> > > > > is all yours.
> > > > If you don't know there are at least three definitions of continuity,
> > > > continuous domains, that each model the linear continuum, "real numbers",
> > > > then how can you expect to understand the quantum and analog?
> > > And how about stopping mumbling and answering the question?
> > > Yhere nust be Great Mystical Mechanism, because ...?
> > It's simple, that fall in space and fall in time balance,
> > fall in time being "time" and fall in space being "gravity".
> >
> > Maybe you should learn about the hologram or representing a
> Or maybe you should stop mumbling and answer the question.
> But it seems no hope for that.

Well you said "Great Mystical Mechanism" so there it is,
a continuum mechanics that arises the theory from axiomless natural deduction,
and principles of paucity, or parsimony if you're a bot.

Of course, gravitational waves effect fluctuations on the clocks' beat,
for something like terrestrial gravitational wave detectors,
to coordinate with the timings their "noise" thereof,
what results an extended mapping of the local ephemeris.

That was your question, right, "What is a theory of everything: physics",
"What is A Theory", ....

Then, you just have to study foundations and see how it arises all formally
and rigorously, I've spent about 30 years studying foundations,
I got into the study of continuum mechanics and it's quite a theory,
and the least possible.

If you want to know my opinion about Einstein and space contraction,
you can find my usual commentary on "Reading from Einstein",
as from my non-ad-driven podcasts https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
or from reading here, with my 10,000's posts here and to sci.math and sci.logic.

Each of which has a URL, that's also a URI and a URN, ....

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 3:11:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 21.01.2024 12:41, skrev Lou:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:13:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> >>>
> >>> Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
> >>> up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.
> When a normal clock say a second has passed, then
> the time one second has passed irrespective of the clock's
> position and state of motion.
>
> Read the following again:
> >> Here is the definition of a second we use in the real world:
> >> "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value
> >> of the cesium frequency ∆ν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
> >> hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to
> >> be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is
> >> equal to s⁻¹."
> >>
> >> All normal clocks which use second as the time unit
> >> are build according to this definition.
> >> The difference between your wristwatch and an atomic
> >> clock is only the precision of the clock.
> >>
> >> So yes, all normal clocks run at their normal rate
> >> and ticks out a second per second everywhere and always.
> >>
> >> This is the DEFINITION of "time" as used by engineers
> >> and physicist in the real world.
> < snip irrelevant talk about adjusted GPS clocks>
>
> Because:
> >> We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!
> >>
> >>
> >> The rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock in circular orbit is:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Δf/f = dτ/dt_utc - 1 = - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc
> >>
> >> where:
> >> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> >> c = 299792458 m/s
> >> δutc = 6.96927E-10
> >> (1 + δutc) is the rate of UTC relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time
> >>
> >> Normal clock in geostationary orbit:
> >> ------------------------------------
> >> p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
> >> r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
> >>
> >> A normal clock in geostationary orbit runs fast by
> >> Δf/f = 5.391498E-10
> >> relative to UTC.
> >>
> You snipped my question:
>
> |> Previously you claimed that "the classical model" predicted
> |> the same as GR for the rate of clocks "up there".
> |>
> |> Now you seem to have changed your mind.
> |>
> |> So please tell me:
> |> What is the rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock
> |> in geostationary orbit?
> |>
> |> Is it (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC as we know is correct,
> |> or is it something else?
> >
> >
> > Note that the predictions by a non relativistic classical model that
> > resonant frequencies of atomic clocks will be faster at higher altitudes
> > are also thoroughly confirmed by GPS,Galileo and GLONASS.
> I take this to mean that your answer to my question above is:
>
> The "non relativistic classical model" predicts that the rate relative
> to UTC of a normal atomic clock at higher altitudes will be the same
> as the thoroughly confirmed prediction of GR.
>
> We can then continue where we previously stopped :
>
> Since you agree that the clock in geostationary orbit will
> run fast by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC,
> you must also agree to the following:
> Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
> This means that clock A will measure the duration of one rotation
> of the Earth to be:
> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative
> to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be:
> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>
> The geostationary satellite sends a signal with frequency
> f₁ = 10 GHz as measured by clock B.
> The number of cycles sent during one orbit is:
> N = τ₁⋅f₁ = 861640905464553.8 cycles
>
> Since A during one rotation of the Earth will receive all the N
> cycles emitted by B during one orbit, he will measure the received
> frequency to be:
> f₀ = N/τ₀ = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>
> f₀ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
> This is called gravitational blue shift which is an inevitable
> consequence of the fact that clocks "up there" run fast relative to UTC.
> AND it is observed in the real world.
>
> --------------------
>
> Do you now agree to the above?
> Or have you changed your mind again?
> Doesn't your "classical model" predict that clock B will run fast
> relative to UTC?
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating it? Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth. If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a gravitational blue shift. Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and not reduced gravity. You seem to have conflated the two.

On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
> it?

The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
that, because it is a DEFINITION. Such Cs-133 clocks are
self-calibrating (because of that definition).

So the designers and implementers of GPS satellites modified the "clock"
to cancel the gravitational blueshift of signals to the ground. This is
not a standard clock.

> Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.

The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
mechanism on the satellite has been modified so SIGNALS TO THE GROUND
arrive at the correct frequency. In doing so they also canceled the
difference in elapsed proper time of the satellite clock compared to
clocks on the ground.

[Here ground means geoid.]

That modification is 38 microseconds per day. The GPS system also
corrects the clock parameters daily, which includes the overall offset,
but these are more than a thousand times smaller than the modification;
they account for deviations from the ideal orbit, effects of planets and
the sun, clock drift, etc.

> If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a
> gravitational blue shift.

Hmmmm. The "clock" in the GPS satellites is NOT "left to run fast", it
has been MODIFIED. The SIGNALS TO THE GROUND experience gravitational
blueshift, not the "clock".

> Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and
> not reduced gravity.

This is just plain not true. Gravitational blueshift is generated by
differences in gravitational potential [#], not "gravitational
attraction" as you falsely claim.

[#] In weak fields, with speeds << c, such as in the GPS.

You have been told this MANY times in MANY different ways. The fact that
you are unable to understand this indicates that physics is just not for
you -- find some other hobby for which you are more suited.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 05:14:38 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
> > it?
> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
> that, because it is a DEFINITION.

So, nothing can change a DEFINITION?
Are you sure, poor trash?

Does "nothing can change" apply to
all DEFINITIONS or only to the ones you
like?

But you do realize that when your idiot guru
was living and mumbling the DEFINITION
was a bit different?

So, according to that DEFINITION a Cs
oscillator is running 9,192,631,770 on
Earth but 9,192,631,774 on a GPS satellite.
Will you have the impudence to deny it,
poor lying piece of shit?

> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
> mechanism on the satellite has been

pissing at your wannabe DEFINITION . Of course.
Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

Den 23.01.2024 04:39, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 3:11:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The clock B in geostationary orbit will run fast
by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC.
The following is an inevitable logical consequence:

Read it!

>> Clock A is at the geoid and is running synchronously with UTC.
>> This means that clock A will measure the duration of one rotation
>> of the Earth to be:
>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
>> Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative
>> to UTC. Clock B will measure the duration of one orbit to be:
>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>>
>> The geostationary satellite sends a signal with frequency
>> f₁ = 10 GHz as measured by clock B.
>> The number of cycles sent during one orbit is:
>> N = τ₁⋅f₁ = 861640905464553.8 cycles
>>
>> Since A during one rotation of the Earth will receive all the N
>> cycles emitted by B during one orbit, he will measure the received
>> frequency to be:
>> f₀ = N/τ₀ = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>>
>> f₀ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁
>> This is called gravitational blue shift which is an inevitable
>> consequence of the fact that clocks in high orbit run fast relative to UTC.
>> AND it is observed in the real world.

(Clocks in low orbit, r < ca. 1.5 Earth radius,
will run slow relative to UTC)

> How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating it?

By leaving the normal clock to run at its normal rate.

> Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.

Yes.
To run synchronously with UTC the GNSS clocks must be corrected
by the factors:
GPS: (1 - 4.4647E-10)
Galileo: (1 - 4.7218E-10)
GLONASS: (1 - 4.3582E-10)
This is important because the time reported by the satellites
must be in sync with UTC within few ns, and a rate error would
make the offset increase with time.

But not all clocks in orbit have to run synchronously with UTC.
You probably know that there are a lot of geostationary satellites
sending signals (TV etc.) down to Earth. The carriers will typically
be in the order of 10 GHz, and the bandwidth of the signal will
be in the order of MHz. So the tiny gravitational blue shift
Δf = 10E9 x 5.3915E-10 Hz ≈ 5 Hz will be of no consequence whatsoever.
So there is no reason to adjust the rate of the clock.

> If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a gravitational blue shift. Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and not reduced gravity. You seem to have conflated the two.

I explained above what gravitational blue shift is.
Read it!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:50:10 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.01.2024 04:39, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 3:11:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> The clock B in geostationary orbit will run fast
> by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC.

In your gedanken delusions - sure. In the real
world they won't, unless it's within the accepted
margin of error.

> To run synchronously with UTC the GNSS clocks must be corrected

against the strict prohibition of your
mad religion.

> by the factors:
> GPS: (1 - 4.4647E-10)
> Galileo: (1 - 4.7218E-10)
> GLONASS: (1 - 4.3582E-10)
> This is important because the time reported by the satellites
> must be in sync with UTC within few ns

Sure it must (except that it's not quite UTC), common
sense was warning your idiot guru.

> But not all clocks in orbit have to run synchronously with UTC.

They all have, sorry, poor trash, except that it's not
quite UTC. It's just that not all of them have so
demanding margin of the accepted error.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:14:38 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
> > it?
> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
> that, because it is a DEFINITION. Such Cs-133 clocks are
> self-calibrating (because of that definition).
>
> So the designers and implementers of GPS satellites modified the "clock"
> to cancel the gravitational blueshift of signals to the ground. This is
> not a standard clock.
> > Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.
> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
> mechanism on the satellite has been modified so SIGNALS TO THE GROUND
> arrive at the correct frequency. In doing so they also canceled the
> difference in elapsed proper time of the satellite clock compared to
> clocks on the ground.
>
> [Here ground means geoid.]
>
> That modification is 38 microseconds per day. The GPS system also
> corrects the clock parameters daily, which includes the overall offset,
> but these are more than a thousand times smaller than the modification;
> they account for deviations from the ideal orbit, effects of planets and
> the sun, clock drift, etc.
> > If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a
> > gravitational blue shift.
> Hmmmm. The "clock" in the GPS satellites is NOT "left to run fast", it
> has been MODIFIED. The SIGNALS TO THE GROUND experience gravitational
> blueshift, not the "clock".
> > Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and
> > not reduced gravity.
> This is just plain not true. Gravitational blueshift is generated by
> differences in gravitational potential [#], not "gravitational
> attraction" as you falsely claim.
>
> [#] In weak fields, with speeds << c, such as in the GPS.
>
> You have been told this MANY times in MANY different ways. The fact that
> you are unable to understand this indicates that physics is just not for
> you -- find some other hobby for which you are more suited.
>
> Tom Roberts

Thanks Dr. Roberts.

Near field / far field is a lot going on in theories-of-sum-potentials,
linearizing the non-linear, putting kinetics and kinematics together,
explaining the true centrifugal, magnetic resonance and molecular chemistry,
and a bunch other things of our Dirac positronic / Einstein white-hole, sea,
in a land of live supersymmetry.

The word of the day was "potential", about 500 BC, and it was "dunamis".

Neutrino physics has a lot going in with respect to electron physics.

It's a continuum mechanics, ... in deep space near vacuum about 3.75K.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:14:38 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
> > it?
> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
> that, because it is a DEFINITION. Such Cs-133 clocks are
> self-calibrating (because of that definition).
>
> So the designers and implementers of GPS satellites modified the "clock"
> to cancel the gravitational blueshift of signals to the ground. This is
> not a standard clock.
> > Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.
> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
> mechanism on the satellite has been modified so SIGNALS TO THE GROUND
> arrive at the correct frequency. In doing so they also canceled the
> difference in elapsed proper time of the satellite clock compared to
> clocks on the ground.
>
> [Here ground means geoid.]
>
> That modification is 38 microseconds per day. The GPS system also
> corrects the clock parameters daily, which includes the overall offset,
> but these are more than a thousand times smaller than the modification;
> they account for deviations from the ideal orbit, effects of planets and
> the sun, clock drift, etc.
> > If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a
> > gravitational blue shift.
> Hmmmm. The "clock" in the GPS satellites is NOT "left to run fast", it
> has been MODIFIED. The SIGNALS TO THE GROUND experience gravitational
> blueshift, not the "clock".
> > Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and
> > not reduced gravity.
> This is just plain not true. Gravitational blueshift is generated by
> differences in gravitational potential [#], not "gravitational
> attraction" as you falsely claim.
>
> [#] In weak fields, with speeds << c, such as in the GPS.
>
> You have been told this MANY times in MANY different ways. The fact that
> you are unable to understand this indicates that physics is just not for
> you -- find some other hobby for which you are more suited.
>
> Tom Roberts
So the clocks are modified by means of an oscillator that makes them run the same rate in space as on Earth BY DEFINITION. Of course, everyone knows they are set to run the same rate in space.

If they modified the clock to cancel the blueshift of signals it would not run at the same rate as on the ground. BY DEFINITION.

Therefore, it must be the signaling mechanism that is adjusted for blueshift, not the clock. You are conflating the two.

The signals would not be adjusting for the 38 microseconds per day. The clock does that.

On 1/23/24 10:17 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:14:38 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 1/22/24 9:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> How would the clock in orbit be left to run fast without calibrating
>>> it?
>> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz, and NOTHING can change
>> that, because it is a DEFINITION. Such Cs-133 clocks are
>> self-calibrating (because of that definition).
>>
>> So the designers and implementers of GPS satellites modified the "clock"
>> to cancel the gravitational blueshift of signals to the ground. This is
>> not a standard clock.
>>> Surely, it must be calibrated to run the same as on Earth.
>> The Cs-133 oscillators run at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The timekeeping
>> mechanism on the satellite has been modified so SIGNALS TO THE GROUND
>> arrive at the correct frequency. In doing so they also canceled the
>> difference in elapsed proper time of the satellite clock compared to
>> clocks on the ground.
>>
>> [Here ground means geoid.]
>>
>> That modification is 38 microseconds per day. The GPS system also
>> corrects the clock parameters daily, which includes the overall offset,
>> but these are more than a thousand times smaller than the modification;
>> they account for deviations from the ideal orbit, effects of planets and
>> the sun, clock drift, etc.
>>> If the clock is left to run fast in orbit, that is not a
>>> gravitational blue shift.
>> Hmmmm. The "clock" in the GPS satellites is NOT "left to run fast", it
>> has been MODIFIED. The SIGNALS TO THE GROUND experience gravitational
>> blueshift, not the "clock".
>>> Gravitational blue shift is caused by gravitational attraction and
>>> not reduced gravity.
>> This is just plain not true. Gravitational blueshift is generated by
>> differences in gravitational potential [#], not "gravitational
>> attraction" as you falsely claim.
>>
>> [#] In weak fields, with speeds << c, such as in the GPS.
>>
>> You have been told this MANY times in MANY different ways. The fact that
>> you are unable to understand this indicates that physics is just not for
>> you -- find some other hobby for which you are more suited.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> So the clocks are modified by means of an oscillator that makes them run the same rate in space as on Earth BY DEFINITION.

No! You need to LEARN HOW TO READ.

The nonstandard clock in a GPS satellite runs at a slower rate than a
clock on the geoid. This is done so SIGNALS from the satellite arrive on
the geoid with the correct frequency.

Tom Roberts