On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2024 4:44 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:42:58 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2024 9:28 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> And from that I suppose one can predict
> >>>>> the orbital period.
> >>
> >>>> With Newtonian physics, if the ground time is 43082.045250000 seconds,
> >>>> then the satellite time is also 43082.045250000 seconds. Remember, t'=t.
> >>>> So Newtonian physics gives the wrong answer.
> >>
> >>> To equate the functioning of the clock with time is not correct.
> >>> Claiming that Newton can't predict the clock's rate because Newton does not have variable time is obvious nonsense.
> >> "Can't predict the clock's rate" is wrong. Newtonian physics predicts no
> >> effect on the clock rate because all clocks in the universe tick the
> >> same and nothing affects them. In Newtonian physics the ground time and
> >> satellite time are both 43082.045250000 seconds (no change, t'=t), but
> >> this is not what is measured.
>
> > Newton does not say all clocks work the same under any conditions.
> >
> > "If time was the same
> > everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
> > the same everywhere! t'=t." Yes, well try moving a pendulum to a different latitude without changing its length. It will run at a different rate yet time is the same. It is one one of the dumbest parts of relativity to equate time and the readings of clocks.
> You are (deliberately) forgetting that part of a pendulum clock is the
> mass of the earth. Take the clock to the moon and you replace earth's
> mass with the moon's mass and it no longer keeps correct time, not even
> close. Without any mass (your cuckoo clock in deep space) it doesn't
> work at all.
>
> But yes, a pendulum clock (excluding the earth's mass) is an example of
> a clock that really is affected by force (gravity on the pendulum).
> >
> > As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
> And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.
So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a pendulum clock is used in space?

On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 20:23:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.01.2024 22:42, skrev Lou:
> > On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 21:18:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 10.01.2024 11:21, skrev Lou:
> >>>> Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
>
> >>>>> GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
> >>> How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
> >>> You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
> >>> Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
> So you claim that the potential difference is GM/(r-r’)

As I mentioned to Volney...that’s an abbreviation. I even
shortened it to just GM/r if you look back .A convention
Borrowed from Relativists including yourself. Notice many
relativists including yourself and going back to Schwarzchild
use just only “potential” GM/r or even just a squiggle on occasion
If relativists can abbreviate ...why not me?
Anyways it took you weeks to even try to check the maths.
And you still can’t do the maths. Notice that when I started posting
GM/r to you on Dec 30,...I included the following calculation:
47379129.4927 ÷ 299792458^2 = 5.2716391e-10
If you had bothered checking that calculation back then you would have
noticed it is only possible for me to get the correct amount of 47379129.4927
for GM/r-r’.........if I used the full form of (GM/r)- (GM/r’).
A full term which incidentally, I also posted to you a few days ago,
*before* you tried your latest distraction. To try to get out of admitting
you had no cited evidence to prove that total clock gains of 446ms/day
was predicted BEFORE it was observed in the first GPS test in 1977.

> >> A clock stationary in the ECI frame at a distance r' from
> >> the center of the Earth with radius r would run at a rate
> >> relative to a clock on the geoid:
> Should be: relative to a clock stationary in the ECI-frame
> at a distance r from the center of the Earth.
> >>
> >> dτ/dt ≈ 1 + (GM/r - GM/r')/c²
> >>
> >> So according to you: (GM/r - GM/r') = GM/(r-r') :-D
> This is a gigantic blunder, and you have still not got it!
> >

Odd how my ”blunder” gives the correct total of 5.27e-10.
Are you trying to suggest relativity based calculations also “predicting”
5.27e-10 (after it was observed in 1977) are also incorrect?

> > Not sure how you figure I’m wrong. To start with relativity uses
> > something very similar. But let me do my formulas calculation for you.
> > (GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
> That's not your formula, it's my formula above,
> but why do you call c² for f?
> > Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
> >
> > GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
> > GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
> > (GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
> > 47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
> >
> > Does that sound incorrect to you?
> Close enough.
> It is my formula with your numbers:
> Δf/f₀ = dτ/dt - 1 = (GM/r - GM/r')/c² = 5.2915706e-10
>
> Note that this means that a stationary clock in the ECI frame
> at a distance r' from the centre of the Earth would gain
> 5.2915706e-10⋅(24⋅60⋅60) s/day = 4.57 μs/day
> on a stationary clock in the ECI frame at a distance r from
> the centre of the Earth.
>
You just worked that out? Good thing I pointed it out to you.
> Note that the latter clock isn't at the Earth,
> and a GPS SV isn't stationary in the ECI frame,
> so this hasn't much to do with GPS.
>
Fortunately I told you this too many times. Took you long enough
for this to sink in.
> YOUR formula is:
> Δf/f₀ = (GM/(r - r'))/c² = 2.231178e-10
Don’t know where you got this fake number.
I didn’t. You made it up. And pretended I did.
Notice I got 5.27e-10. Same as GR oddly enough.
Interesting how the relativist formulae are in fact
the same as the pure classical non relativist formula.

>
> which is WRONG.

If it’s wrong then how come my formula correctly gives
5.2716391e-10
How did I get correct potential of r and r’ and correct
total potential if my formula was incorrect
Here’s a quote from me to you on Dec30.

GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
(GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842

> Learn this:
> (1/r - 1/r') =/= 1/(r - r')

Learn this
Quote from Lou to Paul Dec 30:
Where r=6371, r’=4.12 r and c^2 is 8.9875532e+16:
(GM/r-r’)÷ f
(47379129.4927) ÷ 299792458^2 = 5.2716391e-10
And additionally for other frequencies:
47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543= +4.63142042086
47379430.8842 ÷ 9.19263177 x 10^16 = +0.00515

> You have made a gigantic mathematical blunder!

You can’t even do maths if you don’t realise (GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842

But I know why you are trying to pretend it’s not OK for me to
abbreviate to GM/r or GM/r-r’ when it’s OK for you and your relativist hero’s
to abbreviate to just GM/r or even to just a squiggle. Why?
Because you can’t supply any evidence to prove 446 ms/day was ever predicted
before 442 ms/day was observed in 1977.
And it’s because you and Volney can’t also explain how dividing the potential
of the sat of 47379430.8842 into 89875518000000000 pieces has ANYTHING
to do with frequency.
Nor can you explain why the size (5.27e-10) of each of the 89875518000000000
pieces of the potential of 47379430.8842 has ANYTHING to do with
your bogus retrodicted formula 1.000000000527.
A retrodicted formula which you and other relativists made up after
measuring a clock gain of 442 ms/day in 1977.

Rest of Pauls maths free Blarney snipped...

On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 21:32:18 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 1:15:25 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >> Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > >>>
> > >>> Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
> > >>>
> > >>> The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
> > >>>
> > >>> What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
> > >>>
> > >>> Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
> > >>>
> > >>> I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L.. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
> > >>> U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
> >
> >
> > >> It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
> > >> claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
> > >> can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
> > >> the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
> > >>
> > >> Must be necromancy, don't you think?
> > >>
> > >> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
> > >>
> > >> They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
> > >>
> >
> > >
> > > You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
> > Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> > GR is thoroughly confirmed and never falsified.
> > >
> > > HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
> > You are rather funny in your naivety!
> > Do you really believe that your failure to understand
> > how GR can predict the gravitational deflection of light
> > means that GR can't predict it? :-D
> >
> > You can see the predictions here:
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
> > Can you find an ambiguous prediction?
> >
> > A simulation:
> > https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> > >
> > > Interpretations of experiments are not facts. Failure to question factoids is imbecilic.
> > In that case you can point out a wrong interpretations of
> > the experiments above. Or can't you?
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> Experiments can never prove space is curved because space is an abstraction. To claim that would prove ignorance of elementary logic. That is all you have proven.

Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even
if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.
And same goes to any of the above of Pauls papers. Including Ives Stillwell
who falsified the formula for classical predictions for the observations by
incorrectly using the wrong term w instead of f ( frequency) in their faked
“incorrect classical” formula .
Paul should be ashamed of himself for not only being a liar..he is a consumate
fraud for publishing false claims on his tacky website.

On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.

>> And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.

> So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a pendulum clock is used in space?

Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity since both the
clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:48:48 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 21:32:18 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 1:15:25 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >> Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory.. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
> > > >>> U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
> > >
> > >
> > > >> It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
> > > >> claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
> > > >> can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
> > > >> the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
> > > >>
> > > >> Must be necromancy, don't you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
> > > >>
> > > >> They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
> > > Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> > > GR is thoroughly confirmed and never falsified.
> > > >
> > > > HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
> > > You are rather funny in your naivety!
> > > Do you really believe that your failure to understand
> > > how GR can predict the gravitational deflection of light
> > > means that GR can't predict it? :-D
> > >
> > > You can see the predictions here:
> > > https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
> > > Can you find an ambiguous prediction?
> > >
> > > A simulation:
> > > https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> > > >
> > > > Interpretations of experiments are not facts. Failure to question factoids is imbecilic.
> > > In that case you can point out a wrong interpretations of
> > > the experiments above. Or can't you?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/
> > Experiments can never prove space is curved because space is an abstraction. To claim that would prove ignorance of elementary logic. That is all you have proven.
> Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
> I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
> papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
> if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
> authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
> myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even
> if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.
> And same goes to any of the above of Pauls papers. Including Ives Stillwell
> who falsified the formula for classical predictions for the observations by
> incorrectly using the wrong term w instead of f ( frequency) in their faked
> “incorrect classical” formula .
> Paul should be ashamed of himself for not only being a liar..he is a consumate
> fraud for publishing false claims on his tacky website.

Aw, snap! Please keep in mind not to blame on malice what may be attributable to ignorance.

That said you've definitely sort of made clear what can be agreed to, or not.

The theory of sum potentials takes a while to grasp,
it takes a sort of entire sea-change of causation.
It implies and infers a supeclassical milieu, for the invariance
of Lorentz which is just a finite constant, then the invariance
of c_g which as far as Newton knows is not.
It's very nice though when it also results the classical is its own potential, again.

Of course Relativity sufficiently sugared fits most all models,
there are though some other models that better fit data.
These are unified field theories and gauge theories with
a sum-of-potentials and in sum-of-histories and such notions
of "causally defined" universes with no closed time-like curves.

This sort of "theory of sum potentials" makes pretty greatly for something like
a fall gravity also neatly so unified with the strong nuclear force's asymptotic freedom.
I.e. it's a _simpler_ fundamental model, with more ultimate _emergent expression_.

I'm still reading d'Espagnat, it's getting pretty good, I'm about up to Chapter 5
"Quantum Physics and Realism".

"... to the microscopic realm this conjecture naturally induces us
to make use, at least as a "temporary scaffolding", of some ontologically
interpretable model, such as the Broglie-Bohm one. But then the surprising
result of Bell's calculation suggests to us that, after all, the agreement in
questions should rather be due not to contingent features (such as correlation
at the source) but to some _deep structures_ of Reality. And then, as a last step,
we may think of just keeping this last idea while removing the scaffolding,
considered not very reliable. The end result of this thought process is that
we do not consider intersubjective agreement to be a miracle. It is indeed
due to some deep structures of mind-independent reality. Only, since all
ontologically interpretable models are unreliable, we cannot claim that we can,
for sure, describe these structures. At best, all we may claim is that we do know
something of them, but only that we know the observational predictive laws
of which they are the hidden source."

("Induction" is another great example on Coulomb and potentials,
inductive current. More action for less axioms.)

It seems that the weakness of his "final ontological interpretation" is that what
he could use is this sort of superclassical continuum, and simultaneity throughout,
to provide as for why hidden variables result common parameters, in the sense of
the view of d'Espagnat as an Einstein's model scientist, equipped with a "real continuum",
mathematically.

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> And same goes to any of the above of Pauls papers. Including Ives Stillwell
> who falsified the formula for classical predictions for the observations by
> incorrectly using the wrong term w instead of f ( frequency) in their faked
> “incorrect classical” formula .

I strongly doubt that you have the mathematical skills to understand
Ives' 1937 theoretical analysis (not included among Paul's papers).

Instead, please read the Wikipedia article on the Ives-Stilwell experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment

Under my current and former user accounts, I have 50% authorship of
this article, while my frequent collaborator, "D.H", has 26% authorship.
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment#tool-authorship
In addition, I am responsible for all of the illustrations.

Where do you claim that the analysis in this article is incorrect?

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 5:46:26 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:48:48 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 21:32:18 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 1:15:25 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > >> Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
> > > > >>> U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >> It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
> > > > >> claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
> > > > >> can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
> > > > >> the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Must be necromancy, don't you think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
> > > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
> > > > Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> > > > GR is thoroughly confirmed and never falsified.
> > > > >
> > > > > HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
> > > > You are rather funny in your naivety!
> > > > Do you really believe that your failure to understand
> > > > how GR can predict the gravitational deflection of light
> > > > means that GR can't predict it? :-D
> > > >
> > > > You can see the predictions here:
> > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
> > > > Can you find an ambiguous prediction?
> > > >
> > > > A simulation:
> > > > https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Interpretations of experiments are not facts. Failure to question factoids is imbecilic.
> > > > In that case you can point out a wrong interpretations of
> > > > the experiments above. Or can't you?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > Experiments can never prove space is curved because space is an abstraction. To claim that would prove ignorance of elementary logic. That is all you have proven.
> > Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
> > I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
> > papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
> > if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
> > authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
> > myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even
> > if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.
> > And same goes to any of the above of Pauls papers. Including Ives Stillwell
> > who falsified the formula for classical predictions for the observations by
> > incorrectly using the wrong term w instead of f ( frequency) in their faked
> > “incorrect classical” formula .
> > Paul should be ashamed of himself for not only being a liar..he is a consumate
> > fraud for publishing false claims on his tacky website.
> Aw, snap! Please keep in mind not to blame on malice what may be attributable to ignorance.
>
> That said you've definitely sort of made clear what can be agreed to, or not.
>
> The theory of sum potentials takes a while to grasp,
> it takes a sort of entire sea-change of causation.
> It implies and infers a supeclassical milieu, for the invariance
> of Lorentz which is just a finite constant, then the invariance
> of c_g which as far as Newton knows is not.
> It's very nice though when it also results the classical is its own potential, again.
>
> Of course Relativity sufficiently sugared fits most all models,
> there are though some other models that better fit data.
> These are unified field theories and gauge theories with
> a sum-of-potentials and in sum-of-histories and such notions
> of "causally defined" universes with no closed time-like curves.
>
>
> This sort of "theory of sum potentials" makes pretty greatly for something like
> a fall gravity also neatly so unified with the strong nuclear force's asymptotic freedom.
> I.e. it's a _simpler_ fundamental model, with more ultimate _emergent expression_.
>
>
>
> I'm still reading d'Espagnat, it's getting pretty good, I'm about up to Chapter 5
> "Quantum Physics and Realism".
>
> "... to the microscopic realm this conjecture naturally induces us
> to make use, at least as a "temporary scaffolding", of some ontologically
> interpretable model, such as the Broglie-Bohm one. But then the surprising
> result of Bell's calculation suggests to us that, after all, the agreement in
> questions should rather be due not to contingent features (such as correlation
> at the source) but to some _deep structures_ of Reality. And then, as a last step,
> we may think of just keeping this last idea while removing the scaffolding,
> considered not very reliable. The end result of this thought process is that
> we do not consider intersubjective agreement to be a miracle. It is indeed
> due to some deep structures of mind-independent reality. Only, since all
> ontologically interpretable models are unreliable, we cannot claim that we can,
> for sure, describe these structures. At best, all we may claim is that we do know
> something of them, but only that we know the observational predictive laws
> of which they are the hidden source."
>
>
> ("Induction" is another great example on Coulomb and potentials,
> inductive current. More action for less axioms.)
>
> It seems that the weakness of his "final ontological interpretation" is that what
> he could use is this sort of superclassical continuum, and simultaneity throughout,
> to provide as for why hidden variables result common parameters, in the sense of
> the view of d'Espagnat as an Einstein's model scientist, equipped with a "real continuum",
> mathematically.
>
> It's a continuum mechanics, ..., requires a mathematical foundations and even a philosophy.
> Then a standard thus equipped Einstein's model physicist can reason it right out.

On January 10, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf

This is a common fallacy of LIGO: it's a test, and confirmation,
of general relativity.  This is faulty reasoning.  (a common defect of fallacies)

A valid test of a theory requires first, that one hypothesizes initial
conditions, then uses the model to predict final conditions.  Then,
one constructs an experiment with exactly those initial conditions,
and eventually measures the final state.

LIGO is not such a thing.  Rather, the scientists ASSUME relativity, then
INTERPRET the results of the observations, making appropriate inferences.
The initial conditions are unknown.  The math doesn't answer that question,
except tentatively, by inference.  Inference isn't an observable.

At least, the authors are intellectually precise:
"Assuming that general relativity (GR) is the correct description
for GW150914 ..."

--
Rich

On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 22:15:25 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>>
> >>> Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
> >>>
> >>> The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
> >>>
> >>> What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
> >>>
> >>> Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
> >>>
> >>> I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
> >>> U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
>
>
> >> It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
> >> claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
> >> can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
> >> the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
> >>
> >> Must be necromancy, don't you think?
> >>
> >> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
> >>
> >> They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
> >>
>
> >
> > You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
> Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> GR is thoroughly confirmed and never falsified.
> >
> > HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
> You are rather funny in your naivety!
> Do you really believe that your failure to understand
> how GR can predict the gravitational deflection of light

It can't, it's insisting light [in vacuum] is following
straight/geodesic paths. Your lmpudent lies won't chage
that, poor trash.

On Friday 12 January 2024 at 00:23:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
>
> >> And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.
>
> > So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a pendulum clock is used in space?
> Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
> GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
> really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity since both the
> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.

Ask your idiot guru Tom. He is a true idiot, but he still
can explain you that a model is not affecting the reality
(at least - not the way your tiny fanatic halfbrain
has imagined).

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>> You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments
>> have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous
>> predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character
>> of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists
>> have shown it is totally illogical.
>
> Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> GR is thoroughly c̶o̶n̶f̶i̶r̶m̶e̶d̶ and n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ f̶a̶l̶s̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶.

except by me, where Einstine pretends that 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆. Which
𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱. The poor Einstine didn't know his ass in this theory. Most likely
stolen. Here comes in my "𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹".
The only theory which actually makes sense. At the level of macro scale,
𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, of course.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:21:28 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 18:50:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,
> > it is also Rubidium with frequency 6834682610.904 Hz.
> > So the frequency synthesiser has to be different if it is
> > Rb oscillator than a Cs oscillator.
> >
> > https://www.electricity-magnetism.org/frequency-synthesizers/
> >
> > Note that in a frequency synthesiser the output frequency
> > is N/M x reference_frequency where N and M are integers.
> I didn’t see much at that link of any help. But it’s an interesting
> formula you mention above. But I don’t understand the terms in it..
> So can I get a clarification . What is ‘reference’ frequency in your
> N/M x ref frequency. Is that 9192631770?
> And what integers are N and M ?

Paul presents a frequency synthesizer diagram that would have
been somewhat beyond state-of-the-art in the 1970s, when the
first GPS satellites were flown. In particular, the N and M
counters were assembled using 7400 series TTL logic hard-wired on
printed circuit boards and were absolutely *NOT* programmable.
TTL logic is not capable of handling gigahertz frequencies. The
output frequencies of the cesium or rubidium atomic frequency
standards first needed to be brought down using high-speed ECL
prescalers to something below, say, 100 MHz. So let us assume a
128x prescaler. The input frequency from a CAFS would therefore
be 71.817435703125 MHz, while the input frequency from a RAFS
would be 53.3959578976875 MHz.

If we assume 24 bit counters, then to get from 71.817435703125 MHz
to 10.23 MHz you need N=2104729 and M=14775781

To get from 71.817435703125 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
N=1660979 and M=11660533
To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.23 MHz you need N=705947
and M=3684723

To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
N=2784179 and M=14532151

Simple?

Den 11.01.2024 23:48, skrev Lou:
>
> Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
> I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
> papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
> if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
> authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
> myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even
> if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.

I suppose the "myth" the authors allegedly admitted not
to be able to defend was GR's prediction of gravitational
deflection of light.

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
"In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
we find that γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2) × 10⁻⁵, in agreement
with the theory of General Relativity."

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
"In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
the result is γ−1 = (−4.8±5.7) × 10⁻⁵, including both
random and systematic error. Einstein’s theory has
survived yet another test."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 11.01.2024 22:23, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> It is amusing that you exhibit no comprehension of the point plainly stated: How can relativity predict twice Newtonian in the eclipse and once Newtonian in Pound & Rebka if it makes an unambiguous prediction? The experimental results are contradictory. Then, do they verify Newton or Einstein? Why don't you just relinquish P&R?

Amusing indeed. This is even hilarious! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

> On 1/11/2024 7:11 AM, Lou wrote: Really?
>> 5.2716726e-10 is not the correct answer? It looks exactly the same as
>> the prediction from GR. Are 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗥 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴?
>> GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
>
> Again,
eW91ciBPUklHSU5BTCBjbGFpbSwgR00vKHItcicpIGlzIHdyb25nISBQYXVsIGNhdWdodCB5b3UsIGFuZCBpbg==
> your reply to him,
IHlvdSBjb3JyZWN0ZWQgeW91ciBtaXN0YWtlIGJ5IHdyaXRpbmcgKEdNL3IpLShHTS9y4oCZKS4=
> I am laughing at your ORIGINAL mistake!
U2xvcHB5LCBzbG9wcHksIHNsb3BweQ==!!

𝗘𝘅-𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗠𝗣'𝘀_𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_𝗝𝗼𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻:_𝗞𝗲𝘆_𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀
Those in power Kiev and Washington effectively function as an
“𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴,” Andrey Derkach has claimed
https://r%74.com/russia/590474-ukraine-biden-corruption-terrorism/

No wonder Biden is desperate to keep sending money to Ukraine. He wants to
keep getting his dime bag cuts.

They found the perfect way in how to skim US and EU taxpayers money

Bribes. Corruption. Blackmails. Murders. American democracy at its best.

On Friday 12 January 2024 at 13:41:10 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> I suppose the "myth" the authors allegedly admitted not
> to be able to defend was GR's prediction of gravitational
> deflection of light.

A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Your insane Shit is assuming and demanding light
[in vacuum] following always straight/geodesic paths.

>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> "In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
> we find that γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2) × 10⁻⁵, in agreement
> with the theory of General Relativity."
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
> "In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
> the result is γ−1 = (−4.8±5.7) × 10⁻⁵

Another lie, of course. At least more subtle than the
previous one.

> random and systematic error. Einstein’s theory has
> survived yet another test."

Nope, nothing alike.

On 1/12/2024 8:03 AM, Clas Rigatos Demetrious wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2024 7:11 AM, Lou wrote: Really?

>>> 5.2716726e-10 is not the correct answer? It looks exactly the same as
>>> the prediction from GR. Are 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗥 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴?
>>> GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
>>
>> Again,

> eW91ciBPUklHSU5BTCBjbGFpbSwgR00vKHItcicpIGlzIHdyb25nISBQYXVsIGNhdWdodCB5b3UsIGFuZCBpbg==
>> your reply to him,
> IHlvdSBjb3JyZWN0ZWQgeW91ciBtaXN0YWtlIGJ5IHdyaXRpbmcgKEdNL3IpLShHTS9y4oCZKS4=
>> I am laughing at your ORIGINAL mistake!
> U2xvcHB5LCBzbG9wcHksIHNsb3BweQ==!!

Nymshifter, your garbage posting software is br0ken again.

On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 23:23:07 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
>
> >> And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.

Says Volney as he pretends Relativity predicted anywhere near
the exact amount of 446 ms/day before 442ms/day was observed in
1977 by the first GPS sat.
Still no sign of any citations backing up your fantasy.

>
> > So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a pendulum clock is used in space?
> Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
> GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
> really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity

Yes. According to Relativity, clock rates and time dilation has nothing to do
with gravity and GM/r. You could be floating inbetween 2 galaxies
and still measure clock gains of 446ms/day.

> since both the
> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.

What’s this sloppy bad formula writing?.... GM/rc². !!
It should be the full version of the metric
Please next time type it out properly and in full please :D

On Friday 12 January 2024 at 13:41:12 UTC, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 13:41:10 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > I suppose the "myth" the authors allegedly admitted not
> > to be able to defend was GR's prediction of gravitational
> > deflection of light.
> A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
> Your insane Shit is assuming and demanding light
> [in vacuum] following always straight/geodesic paths.
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> > "In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
> > we find that γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2) × 10⁻⁵, in agreement
> > with the theory of General Relativity."
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
> > "In terms of the standard post-Newtonian parameter γ,
> > the result is γ−1 = (−4.8±5.7) × 10⁻⁵
> Another lie, of course. At least more subtle than the
> previous one.
> > random and systematic error. Einstein’s theory has
> > survived yet another test."

Not hard for relativity to survive another test when its a relativist
who is the one marking the test.

> Nope, nothing alike.

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.
>
> >> And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.
>
> > So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a pendulum clock is used in space?
> Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
> GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
> really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity since both the
> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.
I thought GR was measuring the gravitational effects.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.01.2024 22:23, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > It is amusing that you exhibit no comprehension of the point plainly stated: How can relativity predict twice Newtonian in the eclipse and once Newtonian in Pound & Rebka if it makes an unambiguous prediction? The experimental results are contradictory. Then, do they verify Newton or Einstein? Why don't you just relinquish P&R?
> Amusing indeed. This is even hilarious! :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
You are unable to deny the contradiction because that would require P&R to be twice Newtonian when both P&R and Pound & Snider clearly stated the effect was Newtonian. Instead you mock.

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:39:21 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 20:23:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 10.01.2024 22:42, skrev Lou:
> > > On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 21:18:24 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >> Den 10.01.2024 11:21, skrev Lou:
> > >>>> Den 08.01.2024 22:06, skrev Lou:
> >
> > >>>>> GM/r-r’ = 47379430.8842
> > >>> How does one get the potential for GPS orbital radius.?
> > >>> You calculate potentials for earth surface r and GPS orbit r’
> > >>> Then to get total for GPS one subtracts r’ from r.
> > So you claim that the potential difference is GM/(r-r’)
> As I mentioned to Volney...that’s an abbreviation. I even
> shortened it to just GM/r if you look back .A convention
> Borrowed from Relativists including yourself. Notice many
> relativists including yourself and going back to Schwarzchild
> use just only “potential” GM/r or even just a squiggle on occasion
> If relativists can abbreviate ...why not me?
> Anyways it took you weeks to even try to check the maths.
> And you still can’t do the maths. Notice that when I started posting
> GM/r to you on Dec 30,...I included the following calculation:
> 47379129.4927 ÷ 299792458^2 = 5.2716391e-10
> If you had bothered checking that calculation back then you would have
> noticed it is only possible for me to get the correct amount of 47379129.4927
> for GM/r-r’.........if I used the full form of (GM/r)- (GM/r’).
> A full term which incidentally, I also posted to you a few days ago,
> *before* you tried your latest distraction. To try to get out of admitting
> you had no cited evidence to prove that total clock gains of 446ms/day
> was predicted BEFORE it was observed in the first GPS test in 1977.
> > >> A clock stationary in the ECI frame at a distance r' from
> > >> the center of the Earth with radius r would run at a rate
> > >> relative to a clock on the geoid:
> > Should be: relative to a clock stationary in the ECI-frame
> > at a distance r from the center of the Earth.
> > >>
> > >> dτ/dt ≈ 1 + (GM/r - GM/r')/c²
> > >>
> > >> So according to you: (GM/r - GM/r') = GM/(r-r') :-D
> > This is a gigantic blunder, and you have still not got it!
> > >
> Odd how my ”blunder” gives the correct total of 5.27e-10.
> Are you trying to suggest relativity based calculations also “predicting”
> 5.27e-10 (after it was observed in 1977) are also incorrect?
> > > Not sure how you figure I’m wrong. To start with relativity uses
> > > something very similar. But let me do my formulas calculation for you..
> > > (GM/r -earth) - (GM/r sat) ÷ f
> > That's not your formula, it's my formula above,
> > but why do you call c² for f?
> > > Using r= 6371000 and f= 8.9875518e+16:
> > >
> > > GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
> > > GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
> > > (GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
> > > 47379430.8842/8.9875518e+16 =5.2716726e-10
> > >
> > > Does that sound incorrect to you?
> > Close enough.
> > It is my formula with your numbers:
> > Δf/f₀ = dτ/dt - 1 = (GM/r - GM/r')/c² = 5.2915706e-10
> >
> > Note that this means that a stationary clock in the ECI frame
> > at a distance r' from the centre of the Earth would gain
> > 5.2915706e-10⋅(24⋅60⋅60) s/day = 4.57 μs/day
> > on a stationary clock in the ECI frame at a distance r from
> > the centre of the Earth.
> >
> You just worked that out? Good thing I pointed it out to you.
> > Note that the latter clock isn't at the Earth,
> > and a GPS SV isn't stationary in the ECI frame,
> > so this hasn't much to do with GPS.
> >
> Fortunately I told you this too many times. Took you long enough
> for this to sink in.
> > YOUR formula is:
> > Δf/f₀ = (GM/(r - r'))/c² = 2.231178e-10
> Don’t know where you got this fake number.
> I didn’t. You made it up. And pretended I did.
> Notice I got 5.27e-10. Same as GR oddly enough.
> Interesting how the relativist formulae are in fact
> the same as the pure classical non relativist formula.

Then the effect of gravity on the cesium clocks is Newtonian and not twice Newtonian. Does GR predict Newtonian or twice Newtonian? SR predicts twice....

>
> >
> > which is WRONG.
>
> If it’s wrong then how come my formula correctly gives
> 5.2716391e-10
> How did I get correct potential of r and r’ and correct
> total potential if my formula was incorrect
> Here’s a quote from me to you on Dec30.
> GM/r (earth) = 62565145.91115994
> GM/r (sat) = 15185715.02698057
> (GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
> > Learn this:
> > (1/r - 1/r') =/= 1/(r - r')
> Learn this
> Quote from Lou to Paul Dec 30:
> Where r=6371, r’=4.12 r and c^2 is 8.9875532e+16:
> (GM/r-r’)÷ f
> (47379129.4927) ÷ 299792458^2 = 5.2716391e-10
> And additionally for other frequencies:
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 10229999.99543= +4.63142042086
> 47379430.8842 ÷ 9.19263177 x 10^16 = +0.00515
> > You have made a gigantic mathematical blunder!
> You can’t even do maths if you don’t realise (GM/r)-(GM/r’) = 47379430.8842
>
> But I know why you are trying to pretend it’s not OK for me to
> abbreviate to GM/r or GM/r-r’ when it’s OK for you and your relativist hero’s
> to abbreviate to just GM/r or even to just a squiggle. Why?
> Because you can’t supply any evidence to prove 446 ms/day was ever predicted
> before 442 ms/day was observed in 1977.
> And it’s because you and Volney can’t also explain how dividing the potential
> of the sat of 47379430.8842 into 89875518000000000 pieces has ANYTHING
> to do with frequency.
> Nor can you explain why the size (5.27e-10) of each of the 89875518000000000
> pieces of the potential of 47379430.8842 has ANYTHING to do with
> your bogus retrodicted formula 1.000000000527.
> A retrodicted formula which you and other relativists made up after
> measuring a clock gain of 442 ms/day in 1977.

What are the possibilities?
1.) The clock gain was found empirically and the synthesizer adjusted the clock to that.
2.) The clock gain was determined beforehand by essentially classical Newtonian methods that were claimed to be relativity.
They probably believed they were using relativity yet it boils down to Newtonian.
>
> Rest of Pauls maths free Blarney snipped...

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:48:48 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 21:32:18 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 1:15:25 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 10.01.2024 22:38, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:19:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >> Den 09.01.2024 22:29, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Relativity is an illogical theory, so it does not make predictions. As Essen, Rutherford, and Soddy said, it is not even a scientific theory.. Relativity is thoroughly irrational.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The idea that a postulate does not explain is ridiculous.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What is the relativity mechanism or cause of the difference in clock rates? If it is gravity, then Newton has a prediction.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Claiming the Newton mode would be no adjustment at all is so flagrantly false as to be a deceitful obfuscatory tactic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I acknowledge the accurate prediction was made and deny it could have had anything to do with relativity contrary to James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill
> > > >>> U. S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). How did they really predict it?
> > >
> > >
> > > >> It's frustrating that a theory which Laurence Clark Crossen
> > > >> claims is illogical and can't make unambiguous predictions,
> > > >> can make precise correct predictions for how clocks behave in
> > > >> the gravitational field in Earth's vicinity, isn't it? :-D
> > > >>
> > > >> Must be necromancy, don't you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW, here are more experiments which confirm SR/GR :
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
> > > >> https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
> > > >>
> > > >> They will all go away if you ignore them! :-D
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You cannot defeat my argument by insistently asserting that experiments have proved an illogical theory that never made any unambiguous predictions. You can only do so by demonstrating the logical character of your theory, which you only assert. Countless excellent scientists have shown it is totally illogical.
> > > Experimental evidence trumps your opinion and belief.
> > > GR is thoroughly confirmed and never falsified.
> > > >
> > > > HOW CAN RELATIVITY PREDICT DOUBLE NEWTONIAN FOR THE ECLIPSE AND NEWTONIAN FOR POUND & REBKA? Then, the predictions are as ambiguous as those of a necromancer.
> > > You are rather funny in your naivety!
> > > Do you really believe that your failure to understand
> > > how GR can predict the gravitational deflection of light
> > > means that GR can't predict it? :-D
> > >
> > > You can see the predictions here:
> > > https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
> > > Can you find an ambiguous prediction?
> > >
> > > A simulation:
> > > https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> > > >
> > > > Interpretations of experiments are not facts. Failure to question factoids is imbecilic.
> > > In that case you can point out a wrong interpretations of
> > > the experiments above. Or can't you?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/
> > Experiments can never prove space is curved because space is an abstraction. To claim that would prove ignorance of elementary logic. That is all you have proven.
> Ignore Paul. Like his peers, Paul is a Pathological liar.
> I’m sure I’ve even pointed out to him in the past year that the original much cited
> papers on the Cassini Shapiro delay...admitted that not only did they NOT check
> if classical refraction was or was not possible. The papers
> authors admitted they couldn’t have because the the data to prove the
> myth was at best incomplete and therefore could not rule out refraction even
> if They had tried to in their paper. Which they didn’t.
> And same goes to any of the above of Pauls papers. Including Ives Stillwell
> who falsified the formula for classical predictions for the observations by
> incorrectly using the wrong term w instead of f ( frequency) in their faked
> “incorrect classical” formula .
> Paul should be ashamed of himself for not only being a liar..he is a consumate
> fraud for publishing false claims on his tacky website.
They use dismissive tactics. Relativity was never subjected to careful scrutiny. It was sold by PR. Since it is not rigorous science it cannot be honestly defended. The mathematicians here are blithely ignoring physics as Einstein did. Thank you for the info on the Shapiro delay. Dowdye thinks the radio waves are refracted by the solar wind while starlight is not.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.01.2024 22:23, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > It is amusing that you exhibit no comprehension of the point plainly stated: How can relativity predict twice Newtonian in the eclipse and once Newtonian in Pound & Rebka if it makes an unambiguous prediction? The experimental results are contradictory. Then, do they verify Newton or Einstein? Why don't you just relinquish P&R?
> Amusing indeed. This is even hilarious! :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation": "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight. [...]"

On 1/12/2024 6:56 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:21:28 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 18:50:08 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>>> It is not only Cs with frequency 9192631770 Hz that is used,
>>> it is also Rubidium with frequency 6834682610.904 Hz.
>>> So the frequency synthesiser has to be different if it is
>>> Rb oscillator than a Cs oscillator.
>>>
>>> https://www.electricity-magnetism.org/frequency-synthesizers/
>>>
>>> Note that in a frequency synthesiser the output frequency
>>> is N/M x reference_frequency where N and M are integers.
>> I didn’t see much at that link of any help. But it’s an interesting
>> formula you mention above. But I don’t understand the terms in it.
>> So can I get a clarification . What is ‘reference’ frequency in your
>> N/M x ref frequency. Is that 9192631770?
>> And what integers are N and M ?
>
> Paul presents a frequency synthesizer diagram that would have
> been somewhat beyond state-of-the-art in the 1970s, when the
> first GPS satellites were flown. In particular, the N and M
> counters were assembled using 7400 series TTL logic hard-wired on
> printed circuit boards and were absolutely *NOT* programmable.

Likely 5400 series, but these are just military spec 7400 series with
the same numbers except the 5 vs 7.

> TTL logic is not capable of handling gigahertz frequencies. The
> output frequencies of the cesium or rubidium atomic frequency
> standards first needed to be brought down using high-speed ECL
> prescalers to something below, say, 100 MHz. So let us assume a
> 128x prescaler. The input frequency from a CAFS would therefore
> be 71.817435703125 MHz, while the input frequency from a RAFS
> would be 53.3959578976875 MHz.

I'm not sure what the high speed prescaler logic would be but ECL sounds
correct, being of that time period.
>
> If we assume 24 bit counters, then to get from 71.817435703125 MHz
> to 10.23 MHz you need N=2104729 and M=14775781
>
> To get from 71.817435703125 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
> N=1660979 and M=11660533
>
> To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.23 MHz you need N=705947
> and M=3684723
>
> To get from 53.3959578976875 MHz to 10.2299999954326 MHz you need
> N=2784179 and M=14532151
>
> Simple?

I was recently looking at how such synthesizers work. One of the two
dividers divides down the fixed Cs or Rb clock output while the other
divides down the output of a voltage controlled oscillator. The two
outputs are fed into a phase locked loop circuit which controls the
voltage controlled oscillator.