On Monday 8 January 2024 at 03:42:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:

> Well, yes you have! In this very thread you have said "Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics." That is a claim that you cannot possibly support with evidence.

Time is "what clocks indicate". Anyone can check
GPS, what clocks indicate there (a time called GPS time)
is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error.
Of course, a fanatic idiot will keep answerring the
evidence with spitting and insults.

> “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
> other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

You're, of course, an example of both.

On Monday 8 January 2024 at 07:49:26 UTC+1, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 8 January 2024 at 03:42:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
>
> > Well, yes you have! In this very thread you have said "Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics." That is a claim that you cannot possibly support with evidence.
> Time is "what clocks indicate". Anyone can check
> GPS, what clocks indicate there (a time called GPS time)
> is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error.
> Of course, a fanatic idiot will keep answerring the
> evidence with spitting and insults.

And, well, it's the evidence for "time dilation is fiction".
Not for "time dilation is not physics".

Den 07.01.2024 21:08, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> The Schwartzschild metric is about the fiction of curved space, which is the reification fallacy; therefore, it explains nothing. The Schwarzschild Metric tells us the amount of time dilation. Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.

All these experiments confirm the predictions of
the Schwartzschild metric:

https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(see experiment on pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

And the satellite navigation systems
GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.

The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:46:58 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 21:08, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > The Schwartzschild metric is about the fiction of curved space, which is the reification fallacy; therefore, it explains nothing. The Schwarzschild Metric tells us the amount of time dilation. Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> All these experiments confirm the predictions of
> the Schwartzschild metric:

No, they don't. It's just that some fanatic idiots
are insisting they do.

> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
> (see experiment on pages 708-716
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>
> And the satellite navigation systems
> GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
> of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic
scum. The clocks in all these networks are
kept in sync. Your Shit is predicting and
insisting they can't be.

> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.

and believing The Shit of his idiot guru against
everything.

Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

> Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.

It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
The difference is 19.235 microseconds

Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.

(If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday 8 January 2024 at 14:38:59 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>
> > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> The difference is 19.235 microseconds

It may be proven, but it's pure bullshit, anyone
can check GPS or other network, clocks of
the real world keep sync.

> (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)

A lie, as always. Oppositely, it works because
your church didn't succeed in enforcing your
madness.

On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:38:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>
> > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> The difference is 19.235 microseconds
>
> Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
>
> (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
>
Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency? I was wondering if it was
because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:

GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
c^2 = 8.9875518e+16

47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770= 0.005154066
47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543 = 4.63142042086
4.63142042086 ÷ 0.005154066= 898.59548187
1 ÷ 0.005154066= 194.021574423
898.495561647 ÷ 194.021574423= 4.63090542543
10230000 × 898.59548134 = 9192631774.1
898.59548134 × 10229999.9954 =9192631770
9192631770 ÷ 10229999.9954326= 898.59548134

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Thank you for explaining what Newtonian mode is. Not having heard that, I thought the reasonable supposition was that an honest comparison would be made between the Newtonian gravitational effect on atomic clocks and the relativistic. Most of the effect on the atomic clocks is gravitational.
> The orbiting atomic clocks are in freefall, so there is NO gravitational
> force on them.
> > In fact, all of it is since there is no time dilation.
> Assertion without evidence. In contrast, many experiments, most famously
> the cosmic muon effect, show you to be completely wrong.
> > That is just read into the empirical data.
> And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
> satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
> programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?
A gravitational force is holding them in orbit, and it is less than on Earth. It is this reduction in gravity that causes the clock to function at a faster rate. The same happens for battery-operated clocks in space as it takes less energy. It's enough to know that time is an abstraction to know time dilation involves reification fallacy, so it is not demonstrable by experiment. You misunderstood this "read in". You could listen better instead of insulting people. It refers to the interpretation of part of the rate change as having been caused by SR that is not caused by SR. All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 21:08, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > The Schwartzschild metric is about the fiction of curved space, which is the reification fallacy; therefore, it explains nothing. The Schwarzschild Metric tells us the amount of time dilation. Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> All these experiments confirm the predictions of
> the Schwartzschild metric:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
> (see experiment on pages 708-716
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>
> And the satellite navigation systems
> GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
> of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
>
> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:38:59 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>
> > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> The difference is 19.235 microseconds
>
> Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
>
> (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
How can it fail to explain it? Relativity has not even explained the difference in clock rates at all.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:42:11 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 2:46:58 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> >> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> >> >> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> >> >> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
> >> >>
> >> >> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
>
> >> >> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!
>
> >> >> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?
>
> >> >> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
> >> >>
> >> >> Evidence rules, got any?
> >>
> >> > Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
> >> > spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
> >> > can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
> >> > idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
> >> > is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
> >> > error.
>
> >> LOL, Woz, you would not recognize evidence if it bit you on your pecker. Everyone knows this!
>
> > "Everyone knows" is the fallacy of appeal to the crowd or ad populum.
> So, Larry, do you agree with what Woz has to say? If so, you would likely be the only one here who does! The man knows virtually no physics, just like you! Birds of a feather, no doubt!
> > I have made no claim that requires evidence.
> Well, yes you have! In this very thread you have said "Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics." That is a claim that you cannot possibly support with evidence. Do you think that folks should just take your word for it? There is overwhelming evidence that you are full of crap and it can easily be found with a simple Google search. Do you think that the educated people here are stupid? You are just making it up as you go along, AND EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT (except for Woz, who is as clueless as you are)!
> I have made criticisms of the logic that shows relativity makes no valid predictions. How could a professor be ignorant of logic?
> Larry, you could not possibly pass a class in logic, the very concept of it is way beyond your capabilities.
>
> “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
> other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
>
> —Soren Kierkegaard
I'm sorry you can't understand that time dilation is fiction refutable by logic alone. There is no evidence for time dilation for many reasons, including that it involves the reification fallacy since time is an abstraction. It's too bad none of the relativists can understand my criticisms of relativity. I don't need them to.

On 1/8/2024 4:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> That is just read into the empirical data.

>> And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
>> satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
>> programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?

> [bla bla not addressing the unavailability of empirical data]

You could answer my question rather than spewing nonsense.

> You could listen better instead of insulting people.

If you don't want to be called stooopid, don't act stooopid. There is no
possible empirical data available at the time of the NTS-2 launch. Don't
you agree that it's rather stooopid to claim empirical data was used if
it was nonexistent at the time?

> It refers to the interpretation of part of the rate change as having been caused by SR that is not caused by SR.

Huh? Are you talking about the part that was caused by SR (the motion of
the satellites causing time dilation)?

> All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?

It's not caused by gravitational force that could affect a clock. It is
caused by the Schwarzschild metric, which is proportional to the
gravitational potential in the weak field. The motion of the satellites
reduce the difference from 45µS/day to 38µS/day.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 1:06:06 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:38:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >
> > > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> > It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> > 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> > while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> > The difference is 19.235 microseconds
> >
> > Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
> >
> > (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> > confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
> >
> Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency? I was wondering if it was
> because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
> I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
> where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:
>
> GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
> c^2 = 8.9875518e+16
>
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770= 0.005154066
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543 = 4.63142042086
> 4.63142042086 ÷ 0.005154066= 898.59548187
> 1 ÷ 0.005154066= 194.021574423
> 898.495561647 ÷ 194.021574423= 4.63090542543
> 10230000 × 898.59548134 = 9192631774.1
> 898.59548134 × 10229999.9954 =9192631770
> 9192631770 ÷ 10229999.9954326= 898.59548134

Do you ever wonder whether it's actually an electromechanical,
piezoelectric, in gravific potential, effect?

Too many chefs, not enough soup.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 2:51:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/8/2024 4:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> That is just read into the empirical data.
>
> >> And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
> >> satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
> >> programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?
> > [bla bla not addressing the unavailability of empirical data]
>
> You could answer my question rather than spewing nonsense.
> > You could listen better instead of insulting people.
> If you don't want to be called stooopid, don't act stooopid. There is no
> possible empirical data available at the time of the NTS-2 launch. Don't
> you agree that it's rather stooopid to claim empirical data was used if
> it was nonexistent at the time?
> > It refers to the interpretation of part of the rate change as having been caused by SR that is not caused by SR.
> Huh? Are you talking about the part that was caused by SR (the motion of
> the satellites causing time dilation)?
> > All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?
> It's not caused by gravitational force that could affect a clock. It is
> caused by the Schwarzschild metric, which is proportional to the
> gravitational potential in the weak field. The motion of the satellites
> reduce the difference from 45µS/day to 38µS/day.
Volney, you never listened even when I said I was taking about something else! I'm talking about the fact that the total difference in the clock rate in orbit is partly attributed to SR and part to GR. The point was that there is no SR time dilation so the whole difference is due to gravity. 38 is gravity and there is no 45 except in the imagination of relativists. If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 1:06:06 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:38:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >
> > > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> > It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> > 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> > while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> > The difference is 19.235 microseconds
> >
> > Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
> >
> > (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> > confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
> >
> Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency? I was wondering if it was
> because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
> I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
> where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:
>
> GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
> c^2 = 8.9875518e+16
>
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770= 0.005154066
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543 = 4.63142042086
> 4.63142042086 ÷ 0.005154066= 898.59548187
> 1 ÷ 0.005154066= 194.021574423
> 898.495561647 ÷ 194.021574423= 4.63090542543
> 10230000 × 898.59548134 = 9192631774.1
> 898.59548134 × 10229999.9954 =9192631770
> 9192631770 ÷ 10229999.9954326= 898.59548134
What about lower gravity causes the atomic clock to move faster?

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict.

No theory in physics, logical or illogical, can be proven. Didn't you know this? You don't even understand high-school physics!

Experiments and/or observations (evidence) can certainly support theories, that's how it all works! Didn't you know this?

You don't know very much about physics, do you...

On 1/8/2024 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 2:51:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/8/2024 4:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

[nothing]

I note how you continue not to explain where the empirical value for the
clock offset of the NTS-2 satellite came from.

>>> All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?

>> It's not caused by gravitational force that could affect a clock. It is
>> caused by the Schwarzschild metric, which is proportional to the
>> gravitational potential in the weak field. The motion of the satellites
>> reduce the difference from 45µS/day to 38µS/day.

> Volney, you never listened even when I said I was taking about something else! I'm talking about the fact that the total difference in the clock rate in orbit is partly attributed to SR and part to GR. The point was that there is no SR time dilation so the whole difference is due to gravity.

Assertions are not facts.

SR time dilation is well known and well understood. Are you near sea
level? If so why are all those cosmic muons striking you reaching you at
all? Why not tell Tom R. that the kilometer long pion beam he often
mentions here can't exist, despite the fact that it does or did.

> 38 is gravity and there is no 45 except in the imagination of relativists.

Nope. GR and SR predicted the value of the NTS-2 satellite offset which
was shown to be correct. Gravity Probe A showed the GR value itself.

> If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.

Except it has two components, one is the Schwarzschild metric from the
orbital height and the other the speed of the satellite in its orbit.
And again, the Schwarzschild metric is based on the gravitational
potential, not on the gravitational force.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/8/2024 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 2:51:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/8/2024 4:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> [nothing]
>
> I note how you continue not to explain where the empirical value for the
> clock offset of the NTS-2 satellite came from.
> >>> All the difference is caused by gravity. What do you think causes the faster clock rate in orbit if it isn't lesser gravity?
>
> >> It's not caused by gravitational force that could affect a clock. It is
> >> caused by the Schwarzschild metric, which is proportional to the
> >> gravitational potential in the weak field. The motion of the satellites
> >> reduce the difference from 45µS/day to 38µS/day.
>
> > Volney, you never listened even when I said I was taking about something else! I'm talking about the fact that the total difference in the clock rate in orbit is partly attributed to SR and part to GR. The point was that there is no SR time dilation so the whole difference is due to gravity.
> Assertions are not facts.
>
> SR time dilation is well known and well understood. Are you near sea
> level? If so why are all those cosmic muons striking you reaching you at
> all? Why not tell Tom R. that the kilometer long pion beam he often
> mentions here can't exist, despite the fact that it does or did.
> > 38 is gravity and there is no 45 except in the imagination of relativists.
> Nope. GR and SR predicted the value of the NTS-2 satellite offset which
> was shown to be correct. Gravity Probe A showed the GR value itself.
> > If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.
> Except it has two components, one is the Schwarzschild metric from the
> orbital height and the other the speed of the satellite in its orbit.
> And again, the Schwarzschild metric is based on the gravitational
> potential, not on the gravitational force.
Then, you must be able to explain what the physical cause is of the atomic clock moving fast. What effect does the gravitational potential have on the gas or laser beams in the clock?

On 1/8/2024 10:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/8/2024 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.

>> Except it has two components, one is the Schwarzschild metric from the
>> orbital height and the other the speed of the satellite in its orbit.
>> And again, the Schwarzschild metric is based on the gravitational
>> potential, not on the gravitational force.

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

What you see is the blueshift of the signal from the satellite to the
ground. That makes the ground observer think the satellite clock seems
to run fast.

> What effect does the gravitational potential have on the gas or laser beams in the clock?

None. The only effect is on signals between different potentials, either
redshift or blueshift.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 02:49:03 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict.
> No theory in physics, logical or illogical, can be proven. Didn't you know this? You don't even understand high-school physics!
>
> Experiments and/or observations (evidence) can certainly support theories, that's how it all works!

Any of your precious evidence for this
pseudophilosophical nonsense, Al?
Let me guess - no.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 05:19:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/8/2024 10:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/8/2024 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> If it is not caused by gravity it has nothing to do with GR or the S-metric. The metric is an attempt to measure the gravitational effect on the clock.
>
> >> Except it has two components, one is the Schwarzschild metric from the
> >> orbital height and the other the speed of the satellite in its orbit.
> >> And again, the Schwarzschild metric is based on the gravitational
> >> potential, not on the gravitational force.
>
> > Then, you must be able to explain what the physical cause is of the atomic clock moving fast.
> No clock runs fast.

Don't clocks running at 9 192 631 774 run
faster than clocks running at 9 192 631 770,
stupid Mike?

> Each clock ticks at its normal rate of 1 second per
> second.

If you mean real seconds - true. But you don't.
You mean your ISO idiocy. So it's just a nonsensical
lie even you're not really believing (because you know
of 9 192 631 774 ).

Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> All these experiments confirm the predictions of
>> the Schwartzschild metric:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
>> (see experiment on pages 708-716
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>>
>> And the satellite navigation systems
>> GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
>> of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
>>
>> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
>>

> An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.

Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.
It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.

No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.
A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.

If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
is confirmed (NOT proven).
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is falsified.

It is a fact that predictions of GR for
the experiments above are in accordance with
the measurements.

So it is PROVEN that GR gives the correct predictions
for those particular experiments, and for the satellite
navigation systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou.

Denying facts is irrational behaviour!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:39:08 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> All these experiments confirm the predictions of
> >> the Schwartzschild metric:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
> >> (see experiment on pages 708-716
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
> >>
> >> And the satellite navigation systems
> >> GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
> >> of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
> >>
> >> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
> >>
> > An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
> Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.

No it is not

> It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.

It's just a "fact" imagined and asserted by a fanatic idiot.

>
> No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.

An assertion of a fanatic idiot is worthless.

> A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
> be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
> values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.

Naive wishful thinking of an incompetent, arrogant
layman.

>
> If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
> within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
> is confirmed (NOT proven).
> If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
> then the theory is falsified.
>
> It is a fact that predictions of GR for
> the experiments above are in accordance with
> the measurements.

While in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clcoks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

>
> So it is PROVEN that GR gives the correct predictions
> for those particular experiments, and for the satellite
> navigation systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou.

They all have clocks keeping sync. Will
you have the impudenced to deny, poor
lying piece of shit?

>
> Denying facts is irrational behaviour!

But nobody says a fanatic of The Shit is rational.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 00:26:21 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 1:06:06 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 8 January 2024 at 13:38:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 07.01.2024 21:09, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > >
> > > > Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.
> > > It is a proven fact that a clock in circular orbit with radius
> > > 26561763 metres will advance 43082.045269235 seconds per orbit
> > > while a clock on the geoid will advance 43082.045250000 seconds.
> > > The difference is 19.235 microseconds
> > >
> > > Please show us how Newton explains this gravitational effect.
> > >
> > > (If you wonder, the clock is in GPS orbit, and the effect is
> > > confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.)
> > >
> > Do you know if there was any particular reason why the GPS engineers
> > chose 10230000hz for the clock chip rate frequency? I was wondering if it was
> > because there was a relationship between the caesium clock frequency
> > of 9192631770, c^2 and 10230000.
> > I tried variations of the 3 to see if there was any patterns
> > where r’ is GPS orbit of 4.12x 6371000m:
> >
> > GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
> > c^2 = 8.9875518e+16
> >
> > 47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770= 0.005154066
> > 47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543 = 4.63142042086
> > 4.63142042086 ÷ 0.005154066= 898.59548187
> > 1 ÷ 0.005154066= 194.021574423
> > 898.495561647 ÷ 194.021574423= 4.63090542543
> > 10230000 × 898.59548134 = 9192631774.1
> > 898.59548134 × 10229999.9954 =9192631770
> > 9192631770 ÷ 10229999.9954326= 898.59548134
> What about lower gravity causes the atomic clock to move faster?

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

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 12:39:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.01.2024 22:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> All these experiments confirm the predictions of
> >> the Schwartzschild metric:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
> >> (see experiment on pages 708-716
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
> >>
> >> And the satellite navigation systems
> >> GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou are continuously confirming
> >> of the predictions of the Schwartzschild metric.
> >>
> >> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
> >>
> > An illogical theory cannot be proven by experiment because it does not predict. When the necromancer predicts the winner of a horse race we do not think it was thanks to necromancy.
> Your opinion of the consistency of GR is simply wrong.
> It is a fact that GR is mathematically consistent.
>
> No theory can be proven, but a theory must be falsifiable.
> A theory is tested by calculating what the theory predicts will
> be measured in an experiment, and then comparing the predicted
> values with the measured values when the experiment is performed.
>
> If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements
> within the precision of the measurements, then the theory
> is confirmed (NOT proven).
> If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
> then the theory is falsified.
>
> It is a fact that predictions of GR for
> the experiments above are in accordance with
> the measurements.
>
> So it is PROVEN that GR gives the correct predictions
> for those particular experiments, and for the satellite
> navigation systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou.
>
> Denying facts is irrational behaviour!
>
Yes. But asking for the facts isn’t.
It’s still not clear where the original prediction for a total offset of 4.1
for the frequency C-133 (9192631770) comes from. The earliest I can
find is GM/r ÷ c^2. And 1/2 v^2. But neither specifically state exact
predicted amounts for clock gains/losses. Just ratios of gains vs
radius using Newtonian potential.

Because its not clear if GR did predict a 9192631774.1 total offset for r4.12
As I can’t find any actual prediction of this 4.1 frequency offset until after 1977.
At which point the clock gain had already been measured by the first
GPS satelitte.
And as Ashby says in his paper the theorists and GPS engineers were
not sure what the magnitude would be before launch. Why would
Ashby the expert, if anyone is, say this if it wasn’t true?
So my question is ..Was an exact offset of 4.1 for C-133 preset in the
first GPS sat?
Or was the offset “switch” variable? Because the various literature
on the first test indicates the ground engineers were able to monitor
the daily offset over weeks *before* switching on. So it looks they
measured the offset before they knew it’s exact magnitude. Unless
Ashby was lying.

So my question is: Had the option to *vary* the switchs daily offset
magnitude been built into the first satelitte once they knew the exact
magnitude of the clock gains from a few weeks observation? Because
if Ashby was correct and no exact magnitude was ever even predicted
.....would any sane NASA engineer have sent up a test satelitte with
an offset switch of an exact amount attached if they didn’t
know how much offset to set the switch to was known?

Is there any cited reference on this?