On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 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. [...]"

Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height.
In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
Doppler effects creating the observed offset.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:43:08 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> 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.

Quite likely. The photo that I saw of an early GPS main board showed
a bunch of dual in-line packages among some hardware that I didn't
recognize, but I couldn't read the numbers, of course.

> > 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.

The diagram I saw showed a divide by some power-of-two prescaler,
but after all these years, I don't remember precisely what power-of-two.
Years ago, around the time of the high-tech bubble, I was a developer
at Lockheed. A manager that I was acquainted with had worked on
some GPS sub-system or other, and when I expressed interest in their
timing systems, he dug up some non-classified material that I could
look at but not copy. Interesting stuff. His own work had been on the
nuclear detonation detection system, and he wasn't allowed to talk
about it with me.

> > 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.

In the early days of GPS, every satellite was set to run with the same
fixed frequency offset, even if the satellite had been injected into a
non-nominal orbit, or if its rubidium atomic frequency standard had
experienced a frequency jump during launch. In practice, the fixed
frequency offset was generally within 0.1% of the frequency offset
that was actually required for any particular satellite. Nowadays,
things are a bit different. The Time Keeping System (TKS) used in
current GPS satellites, and the Clock Monitoring and Control Unit
(CMCU) used in Galileo, are both capable of smoothly varying their
output frequencies without phase error. The technologies used in
these systems did not exist in the 1970s when GPS was first developed.

In Galileo, a fixed frequency offset is no longer used. Frequency
offsets are handled through a combination of CMCU control and
corrections incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that
accompanies the navigation message. It is for this reason that one
does not see a precise value of the fixed relativistic offset specified
in the Galileo Interface Control Document, although the ICD does
provide a precise value of the coefficient used in the relativistic
eccentricity correction term (see section 5.1.4.)

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > 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. [...]"
> Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
> But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
> to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height.
> In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
> Doppler effects creating the observed offset.

Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
on the Pound-Rebka experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
of which my authorship stands at 86%:
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > 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. [...]"
> > Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
> > But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
> > to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height..
> > In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
> > Doppler effects creating the observed offset.
> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
> writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
> on the Pound-Rebka experiment
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> of which my authorship stands at 86%:
> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship
The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 8:19:36 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > 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. [...]"
> > > Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
> > > But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
> > > to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height.
> > > In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
> > > Doppler effects creating the observed offset.
> > Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> > and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
> > writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
> > on the Pound-Rebka experiment
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> > of which my authorship stands at 86%:
> > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship
> The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.

Well yeah, if you're going to accept the theories of relativity, you kind of have to
inspect them and test their assumptions yourself, and separate common misconceptions,
and read into that Einstein is always both philosopher and physicists the author of a theory,
and especially that it developed over time, and that more or less Einstein's best is his last.

Einstein's second-most-famous mass/energy equation
is part of his bridge results into field theory and space contraction.
Pretty much nobody's ever heard of it until they find it themselves.

Moment and Motion: monism and theory, doubling-waves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMF_-HprkZs

Questions of philosophy, philosophy of physics, atomism and quantum theory,
Born rule, electron physics, stoichiometry, running constants, configuration,
particle and wave models, waves and radiation, a common viewpoint, continuum
mechanics, physics and philosophy, Being, objective teleology, discontinuities in
theories, continuous theory and continuum mechanics, chromatic and prismatic,
bradyonic and tachyonic, the concept of the ray, radiation, neutrino physics,
supersymmetry, light, noumenal senses, differences of squares, wave reflections,
models of waves, entropy and entropy, deconstructing complex analysis, division
and increment, derivations in forms, quotients of differences and sums, natural
language proofs, symmetry and symmetry-flex, the gaffe, absorption and radiation,
phase and modulation, pressure, symmetry-flex and doubling-waves, reverse
doubling-wave and the stop-derivative, the mathematical commons, space contraction
and superstring theory, fish-finding.

On 1/12/2024 4:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> 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.

I already told you. The design spec for the NTS-2 satellite.
Happy googling. (I'm not doing your work for 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
>
> 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.

Nope. You'd be using the 'infinitely far' value, not that for the GPS
orbital height. Unless you'd want the wrong answer.
>
>
>> since both the
>> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.
>
> What’s this sloppy bad formula writing?.... GM/rc². !!

That *is* the Schwarzschild metric.

> It should be the full version of the metric
> Please next time type it out properly and in full please :D
>
GM/rc². Happy?

On 1/12/2024 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

>> 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.

GR is mass warping spacetime. In GR gravity is not a force, it is the
effect of objects following geodesics in warped spacetime which look
curved so look like a force to us.

You really should learn GR before declaring it wrong.

Volney wrote:

>> T̶T̶L̶ l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ i̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶ c̶a̶p̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ o̶f̶ h̶a̶n̶d̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ g̶i̶g̶a̶h̶e̶r̶t̶z̶ f̶r̶e̶q̶u̶e̶n̶c̶i̶e̶s̶ 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.

these physicists contradict each other. It has nothing to do with the TTL
logic, much less with TTL, but the crystal structure of the
semiconductors. The TTL, and the TTL logic is something else. You may go
down to milivolts and microvolts, and still have TTL and TTL logic. These
big physicists don't know what a TTL is!!

here is what the 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗮𝗺𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 is bombing again in europe and around the
world, the 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 countries. 𝗬𝗼𝘂_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗮𝗺𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮. They kill own
people in the fucking 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 ukurina, exposing the corrupt bidona,
something they can't do in amrica!!

𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_‘𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱’_𝗨𝗦_𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗵𝗼_𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆?
A critic of President Zelensky’s government, 𝗚𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗮𝗹𝗼_𝗟𝗶𝗿𝗮 spent months in a
Kharkov jail
https://r%74.com/russia/588846-journalist-gonzalo-lira-ukraine/

𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗬𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻
Tomahawk missiles were launched at a Houthi-operated radar site, Central
Command said
https://r%74.com/news/590567-us-more-strikes-yemen/

𝗘𝗨_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_‘𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰’_𝗽𝘂𝘀𝗵_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗛𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝘆
A Finnish MEP wants to invoke Article 7 and suspend Viktor Orban’s voting
rights to ensure the bloc can keep supporting Ukraine
https://r%74.com/news/590564-eu-parliament-hungary-orban/

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 03:20:54 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > 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. [...]"
> > Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
> > But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
> > to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height..
> > In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
> > Doppler effects creating the observed offset.
> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
> writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
> on the Pound-Rebka experiment
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> of which my authorship stands at 86%:
> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship

It’s difficult trying to argue with a member of a cult like yourself. You are unable
to discuss any idea that is outside the cult, like for instance Explaining P-R
in non relativistic terms as just classical Doppler shifting of emr waves.
Even though, oddly enough, you do refer to Doppler shift as pivotal and the only
physical effect of importance occuring in the experiment.
If I vibrate a source ( or detector/absorber), In a non relativistic classical
model I will have given the emr g ray source +-v. Under a classical model
these waves now both have additional blue shifting and redshifting
when they arrive at the source. In fact you seem to acknowledge this
is the only thing of importance to be observed and recorded in the data runs
of the P-R paper
So take off your cult hat for a second and calmly and impartially
consider the evidence if you could. Seeing as you seem to think we
non relativists cannot explain P-R. Let’s see you rationally rule
the data out as being consistent with a classical non relativist Doppler effect.
Why can’t this experimental data be explained as a purely classical Doppler shift
effect without having to invoke relativity or gravitational refer /blue shifting?

'On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 07:06:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 4:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > 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.
> I already told you. The design spec for the NTS-2 satellite.

A circular argument you use. The NTS-2 docs are written
post 1977, post test. How could they be considered as evidence of a prediction
made prior to the test in 1977?
Let me guess...relativistic time travel?

> Happy googling. (I'm not doing your work for you)

Said the guy whose evidence for a prediction made prior
to the 1977 GPS test...was written AFTER the 1977 test.
How does one google a doc that didn’t exist prior to test date?

> >
> >>
> >>> 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.
> Nope. You'd be using the 'infinitely far' value, not that for the GPS
> orbital height. Unless you'd want the wrong answer.

Chill out. And Google ‘sarcasm’

> >
> >
> >> since both the
> >> clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.
> >
> > What’s this sloppy bad formula writing?.... GM/rc². !!
> That *is* the Schwarzschild metric.
> > It should be the full version of the metric
> > Please next time type it out properly and in full please :D
> >
> GM/rc². Happy?

Volney wrote:

> On 1/12/2024 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> I thought GR was measuring the gravitational effects.
>
> GR is mass warping spacetime. In GR gravity is not a force, it is the
> effect of objects following geodesics in warped spacetime which look
> curved so look like a force to us.

𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 my ass. The 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 is somethin spewed out by Einstine for
reason of 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆. That's the quantum level action, 𝗺𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 the macro
scale domain. Following my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹", where the
𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 is proven to be real.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

𝗪𝗘𝗙_𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀_‘𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀’_𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_‘𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀’_𝗔𝗿𝗲_‘𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀’
The World Economic Forum has declared that anybody who promotes a
“different perception of reality” and questions the authority of “experts”
should be considered “more dangerous” than a terrorist in 2024. The World
Economic Forum […]

‘𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰’_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱_𝗔𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁_𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗡𝗬𝗖_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗧𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀_–_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗼𝘂𝘁
We have been warning about secret tunnel systems involving prominent
members of the global elite for years. Now evidence is emerging linking
the illegal tunnel system found beneath Crown Heights in Brooklyn with
Jeffrey Epstein, […]

𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀_‘𝗦𝗺𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗚𝘂𝗻’_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗺𝗥𝗡𝗔_𝗜𝘀_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗧𝗼_‘𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲_𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀’
Attorney Thomas Renz has released smoking gun evidence the Covid-19 mRNA
vaccine technology was designed to continue killing for generations with
the purpose of reducing the global population. The leading US attorney
surveyed the US […]

𝗧𝗼𝗽_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺_𝗶𝗻_𝗩𝗮𝘅𝘅𝗲𝗱_𝗠𝗲𝗻
Sperm cells in men who have received the mRNA vaccine are being replaced
by spike proteins, according to a top German medical examiner. During a
recent lecture, the late pathologist Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt detailed how
after […]

𝗙𝗕𝗜_𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁_𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_–_𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗼_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗦𝗲𝘁𝗵_𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝗠𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲
The FBI has illegally defied a Federal court order and refused to hand
over evidence related to the murder of Seth Rich. In September 2023, a
judge demanded the FBI and DOJ provide all they […]

𝗘𝗨_𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗧𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝘆_𝗼𝗻_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀’_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘁_𝗨𝘀𝗲
The European Commission has announced plans to begin spying on Europeans’
internet usage to monitor users who visit “illegal” non-mainstream
websites. The EC’s eIDAS Article 45 would drastically weaken areas of
internet security that the […]

𝗣𝗳𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗕𝘆_𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀_–_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗼𝘂𝘁
The co-creator of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine has been struck
down by facial paralysis – a known side-effect of the vaccine – and
mainstream media is doing its best to cover up the situation. […]

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀_𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁_‘𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲’_𝗧𝗮𝘆𝗹𝗼𝗿_𝗦𝘄𝗶𝗳𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗮_‘𝗣𝘀𝘆_𝗢𝗽’_𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮
A Pentagon spokesperson has labelled claims that Taylor Swift is being
used as an “asset” as part of a psychological operation pushing the
globalist agenda is nothing more than a “crazy conspiracy theory.” Given
the […]

𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹_𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲_𝗙𝗼𝗿_2_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗜𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗔𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅
Maine has just built several brand new apartment buildings for people who
managed to illegally cross the US border. And yes, it was the taxpayers of
Maine who funded the the constuction of these apartments. […]

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗣𝗠_𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀_𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗔_£2.5𝗕𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲_𝗜𝗻_𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗔𝗶𝗱
British prime minister Rishi Sunal is making a surprise visit to Kiev to
meet President Zelensky as the UK announced it will provide £2.5 billion
in miltary funding to Ukraine over the coming year. The […]

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 04:20:54 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > 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. [...]"
> > Although It’s not mentioned in the paper maybe a control test was made.
> > But if not, it’s odd that the experiment wasn’t set up in another location
> > to do an additional version with the source and detector at same height..
> > In other words horizontally rather than vertically to see if was purely
> > Doppler effects creating the observed offset.
> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's

Unlike your fellow idiot Volney insisting that
adjusting clocks to your ISO idiicy means some
"Newton mode".
Right, poor piece of lying shit?

Den 13.01.2024 05:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> 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. [...]"

>> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
>> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
>> writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
>> on the Pound-Rebka experiment
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>> of which my authorship stands at 86%:
>> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship

> The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.

Right.
The effects of gravity on photons are the same
as every other object.

The gravitational (coordinate) acceleration does not depend
on the mass of the object, it only depends on its speed.
If the speed is low, like for satellites orbiting the Earth,
relativity and Newton will predict the same deflection
by Earth's gravitation and thus predict the same orbit.
But if the speed of a test particle with mass is very close
to c, the deflection will be the same as for a photon,
which is twice of what Newton predicts.

Note that in deflection of a photon the acceleration
is transverse to the velocity, so the speed does not change.
The same is the case for a test particle with speed
very close to c, its speed does not change.

If the object's initial velocity is radially, then GR
predicts that the speed will increase and approach
asymptotically to c, while Newton predicts that the speed
will keep increasing indefinitely (to it hits Earth).
If the initial speed is c (photon), GR predicts that
that the speed will be constant c, and the increased
kinetic energy will be stored in the increased frequency
of the photon.
Newton predicts that the speed will increase beyond c,
and the kinetic energy will be mv²/2.

The speed of gamma particles can be measured.
It is always c as predicted by GR, never
beyond c as predicted by Newton.

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

I have two simulations illustrating this point.
Used in both simulations is the post-Newtonian approximation
of the gravitational acceleration predicted by GR.

Se equation (2) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

The simulation:
https://paulba.no/Satellites.html
Simulates the orbits of several satellites,
among them are Geostationary, GPS, GLONASS and Galileo.
The point in this context is that GR predicts the same
orbits as Newton. (I have tried.)
So with the low speed of the planets, GR an Newton predicts
the same "deflection" of the velocity of the planets.

The simulation:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
Simulates the deflection of light from a star by the Sun
for any angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth.
The photon is treated as a test particle with initial speed c.
In this case, when the speed is c, GR gives exactly twice
the deflection of Newton.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 13:11:48 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.01.2024 05:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> 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. [...]"
> >> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> >> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
> >> writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
> >> on the Pound-Rebka experiment
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> >> of which my authorship stands at 86%:
> >> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship
>
> > The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.
> Right.
> The effects of gravity on photons are the same
> as every other object.
>
> The gravitational (coordinate) acceleration does not depend

Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. According to
it there is no such thing.

> But if the speed of a test particle with mass is very close
> to c, the deflection will be the same as for a photon,
> which is twice of what Newton predicts.

Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. According to it
there is no deflection .

> If the initial speed is c (photon), GR predicts that
> that the speed will be constant c, and the increased
> kinetic energy will be stored in the increased frequency
> of the photon.
> Newton predicts that the speed will increase beyond c,

What Newton? Newton's optics was abandoned
in XVIIIth century.

> So with the low speed of the planets, GR an Newton predicts
> the same "deflection" of the velocity of the planets.
>
> The simulation:
> https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> Simulates the deflection of light from a star by the Sun
> for any angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth.
> The photon is treated as a test particle with initial speed c.
> In this case, when the speed is c, GR gives exactly twice

No, trash, your Shit gives no deflection. Your Shit
assumes and demands light [in vacuum] always takes
straight/geodesic path.
You're getting your deflection because even you're
not stupid enough to treat anti-Euclid madness
of your idiot guru seriously. Instead The Shit you're
using Euclidean models, alleged triumphs of your
Shit are all Euclid's triumphs over it.

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 12:11:48 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.01.2024 05:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 7:20:54 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>> On Friday 12 January 2024 at 22:56:08 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 4:55:24 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> 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. [...]"
> >> Both you and Lau show profound misunderstandings
> >> and ignorance of what you've read. In addition to Paul's
> >> writings, I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article
> >> on the Pound-Rebka experiment
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> >> of which my authorship stands at 86%:
> >> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#tool-authorship
>
> > The fact is the quote cannot be misunderstood and plainly states the effects of gravity on photons are the same as every other object, so since you cannot concede this you have profoundly misunderstood, no doubt because you foolishly accept relativity.
> Right.
> The effects of gravity on photons are the same
> as every other object.
>
> The gravitational (coordinate) acceleration does not depend
> on the mass of the object, it only depends on its speed.
> If the speed is low, like for satellites orbiting the Earth,
> relativity and Newton will predict the same deflection
> by Earth's gravitation and thus predict the same orbit.
> But if the speed of a test particle with mass is very close
> to c, the deflection will be the same as for a photon,
> which is twice of what Newton predicts.
>
> Note that in deflection of a photon the acceleration
> is transverse to the velocity, so the speed does not change.
> The same is the case for a test particle with speed
> very close to c, its speed does not change.
>
> If the object's initial velocity is radially, then GR
> predicts that the speed will increase and approach
> asymptotically to c, while Newton predicts that the speed
> will keep increasing indefinitely (to it hits Earth).
> If the initial speed is c (photon), GR predicts that
> that the speed will be constant c, and the increased
> kinetic energy will be stored in the increased frequency
> of the photon.
> Newton predicts that the speed will increase beyond c,
> and the kinetic energy will be mv²/2.
>
> The speed of gamma particles can be measured.
> It is always c as predicted by GR, never
> beyond c as predicted by Newton.
>
> -------------
>
> I have two simulations illustrating this point.
> Used in both simulations is the post-Newtonian approximation
> of the gravitational acceleration predicted by GR.
>
> Se equation (2) in:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
>
> The simulation:
> https://paulba.no/Satellites.html
> Simulates the orbits of several satellites,
> among them are Geostationary, GPS, GLONASS and Galileo.
> The point in this context is that GR predicts the same
> orbits as Newton. (I have tried.)
> So with the low speed of the planets, GR an Newton predicts
> the same "deflection" of the velocity of the planets.
>
> The simulation:
> https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
> Simulates the deflection of light from a star by the Sun
> for any angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth.
> The photon is treated as a test particle with initial speed c.
> In this case, when the speed is c, GR gives exactly twice
> the deflection of Newton.

WTF is Newton? Fortunately the occult worshipping Newton and his very
cultish concept that light was comprised of corpuscles photons was ruled
out once and for all by Huygens and Young. Using empirical evidence.
Unfortunately since1905 empirical evidence is no longer accepted by current
theorists.
The only reason why Newton’s fellow cult member Albert re-introduced the
photon, just before he published SR in 1905, was because relativity was/is not
consistent with a wave only theory of light.
Even though light has never actually been observed to be particulate.
Pound Rebka X for instance is fully compatible with a classical wave only
theory of light by describing the observations as Doppler shifting of emr
to different frequencies.

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 8:19:42 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> Pound Rebka X for instance is fully compatible with a classical wave only
> theory of light by describing the observations as Doppler shifting of emr
> to different frequencies.

Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
waves are received on the ground.

How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?

Tick fairies?

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 16:05:57 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 8:19:42 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > Pound Rebka X for instance is fully compatible with a classical wave only
> > theory of light by describing the observations as Doppler shifting of emr
> > to different frequencies.
> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> waves are received on the ground.
>
> How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?

Was emitted before the period?

>
> Tick fairies?

Unlikely., but some idiots can believe even time dilation.

On 1/10/2024 8:03 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 00:16:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 4:01 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 17:35:14 UTC, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2024 10:08 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:42:58 UTC, Volney wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Umm, no. Newtonian time is the same everywhere. Remember the Galilean
>>>>>> transform where t' = t?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
>>>>> clock gains with resonance using GM/r.
>>>> Your second sentence contradicts the first. If time was the same
>>>> everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
>>>> the same everywhere! t'=t.
>>>>>
>>> You forgot. A Classical model doesn’t have time change.
>> I assume you mean Newtonian physics doesn't because classical GR
>> certainly does.
>
> Classical GR? Since when does classical physics use imaginary spacetime
> and time travelling twins!! :D

No, classical GR uses real spacetime. Time traveling twins is a figment
of your imagination.
>
>>> It
>>> has harmonic oscillators resonating at higher frequencies at
>>> lower gravitational fields.
>> Except that would be proportional to the gravitational force or
>> proportional to 1/r² while the weak field time dilation is proportional
>> to 1/r. As you have been told REPEATEDLY. Did you forget or are you
>> really stooopid?
>>
> Show me the classical (non relativistic ) formula for modelling
> resonant frequencies at different altitudes that doesn’t use r.

Sorry, but anything that involves gravitational force such as your
defective clock components that depends on variable "resonances" involve
effects proportional to the force, or proportional to 1/r²
>
>>> As observed.
>>
>> Observed to be proportional to 1/r, esp. as other sat navigation systems
>> in different orbits (GALILEO, GLONASS, BEIDOU etc.) show.
>
> Exactly. And modelled proportional to r to a great accuracy by
> using the simple non relativistic formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f

That formula, if you replace the incorrect "f" (some frequency) with c²
is the general relativity Schwarzschild metric.

>>>>> Newton didn’t. But classical physics does. And it works.

>> Newtonian physics only uses it for potential energy per unit mass.

>>>>> Albeit with error margins of 0.00021 vs Relativity’s 0.0001.

>> Obviously misapplied Newtonian physics is wrong.

>>>>> After all c^2 is just a number
>>>> No, it is not. It has dimensionality of length²/time².
>>>>
>>> What SI unit is it?

>> Can't you read? Length²/time² or in SI, meters²/seconds².
>
> So meters²/seconds² is what in the formula..acceleration?

No, acceleration is meters/seconds².
>
>>>>> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats
>>>>> faster at higher altitudes.
>>
>>>> No, the satellite clocks are designed to tick at the correct rate and
>>>> not to be affected by external events. That's why they are so accurate,
>>>> they can't be affected by external things like a ground level Cs clock
>>>> being affected by the gravity of a fat scientist walking by it. Besides,
>>>> any "resonant frequency" effects would be proportional to force, which
>>>> varies as 1/r², but the altitude effect varies at 1/r. And the clocks
>>>> are in freefall, so there is no force or 1/r² effect on them. Newtonian
>>>> physics nothing is affected proportional to 1/r other than the potential
>>>> energy of a mass.
>>
>>> A clock at the top of Everest also has clock gains under classical theory using
>>> GM/r. Yet it’s not in free fall.
>> So it has a force on it, yet it still works correctly, showing how a
>> properly operating clock works correctly in freefall or not in freefall.
>> The Schwarzschild metric still applies, of course.
>
> Yes and it also resonates at a higher frequency. And predicted as well
> by the classical resonance formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f.

That is a miswritten version of relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
GM/rc². Again, congratulations for stumbling across the metric, but
Schwarzschild beat you to it by more than 100 years.

> Although you’ll have to be careful when you ask them. They get
> really touchy when you point out that their “spacey metric” term or whatever
> they call it is actually just force of gravity by another name.

And again, I must conclude you are really, really stooopid for repeating
that despite repeated correction. I'll mention YET AGAIN that the
Schwarzschild metric varies as 1/r while force/acceleration of gravity
varies as 1/r².

> Anyways the fact is harmonic oscillators

....which would vary as 1/r²...

> have been observed to resonate at
> higher frequencies when less force is exerted on them

Some higher and some lower. A properly designed clock will not have
anything that varies with gravitational force (excluding pendulum clocks
which use gravity as part of their operation).

> and this effect
> has been well understood for centuries I believe.

Which is why scientists designed such effects out of clocks as best they
can. As well as effects of thermal expansion, friction etc. that have to
be eliminated in accurate clocks.

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 15:05:57 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 8:19:42 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > Pound Rebka X for instance is fully compatible with a classical wave only
> > theory of light by describing the observations as Doppler shifting of emr
> > to different frequencies.
> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> waves are received on the ground.
>
> How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
>
> Tick fairies?

No Relativistick fairies. The real problem lies in the fact that you forgot
that since MMX, relativists just cannot accept that a classical non relativistic
model can also have no aether.In other words MMX proved that light waves always
travel at c relative to the source regardless of the sources motion relative to the
observer. And complain all you want...you cannot prove that this is not
consistent with observations. You probably forgot but this is the argument
we had way back. I said that MMX proved that light always travels at
c relative to the source. Relativists, desperate to rule out classical wave
theory as a competitor pretended MMX rules out any wave theory of light
because supposedly if they’re is no aether...light cannot be a wave!!!!

Pure Nonsense of course. Kind of like flat earthers saying the copernican
universe is wrong because the bible says the earth has to always be flat.
But it’s easier to explain it if one has the observer vibrate.
And so...Why couldn’t Doppler explain the higher frequency observed? For instance:

A source is emitting 1 wave a second.The observer sees 1 wave a second.
Now move the observer towards the source. Doesnt Doppler predict
that the frequency of waves observed will increase?
Isn’t that equivelent to seeing an extra wave per unit time ?

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 16:11:15 UTC, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 16:05:57 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 8:19:42 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > > Pound Rebka X for instance is fully compatible with a classical wave only
> > > theory of light by describing the observations as Doppler shifting of emr
> > > to different frequencies.
> > Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > waves are received on the ground.
> >
> > How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
> Was emitted before the period?
>
Yes. Good answer. Because Prokaryotics argument is
flawed. He didn’t specify any other parameters. Deliberately
to falsify his argument.

> >
> > Tick fairies?
>
> Unlikely., but some idiots can believe even time dilation.

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 21:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 8:03 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 00:16:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2024 4:01 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 17:35:14 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2024 10:08 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 14:42:58 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Umm, no. Newtonian time is the same everywhere. Remember the Galilean
> >>>>>> transform where t' = t?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Yes. Classical physics has time same everywhere. But it explains
> >>>>> clock gains with resonance using GM/r.
> >>>> Your second sentence contradicts the first. If time was the same
> >>>> everywhere, then there will be no clock gain, because, well, the time is
> >>>> the same everywhere! t'=t.
> >>>>>
> >>> You forgot. A Classical model doesn’t have time change.
> >> I assume you mean Newtonian physics doesn't because classical GR
> >> certainly does.
> >
> > Classical GR? Since when does classical physics use imaginary spacetime
> > and time travelling twins!! :D
>
> No, classical GR uses real spacetime. Time traveling twins is a figment
> of your imagination.
> >
> >>> It
> >>> has harmonic oscillators resonating at higher frequencies at
> >>> lower gravitational fields.
> >> Except that would be proportional to the gravitational force or
> >> proportional to 1/r² while the weak field time dilation is proportional
> >> to 1/r. As you have been told REPEATEDLY. Did you forget or are you
> >> really stooopid?
> >>
> > Show me the classical (non relativistic ) formula for modelling
> > resonant frequencies at different altitudes that doesn’t use r.
>
> Sorry, but anything that involves gravitational force such as your
> defective clock components that depends on variable "resonances" involve
> effects proportional to the force, or proportional to 1/r²
> >

But GR involves gravitational force and only uses r.
Oh I forgot...we’re not supposed to point out that Einstein pretended
gravity didn’t exist and called gravity by a different name...
spacetime or metric or magic goblins or whatever
Smart move. That way you can use r to model gravity effects. And pretend
you weren’t using r to model gravity effects.

> >>> As observed.
> >>
> >> Observed to be proportional to 1/r, esp. as other sat navigation systems
> >> in different orbits (GALILEO, GLONASS, BEIDOU etc.) show.
> >
> > Exactly. And modelled proportional to r to a great accuracy by
> > using the simple non relativistic formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f
>
> That formula, if you replace the incorrect "f" (some frequency) with c²
> is the general relativity Schwarzschild metric.
>
Amazing isn’t it. A simple formula anyone can work out.
And you don’t need to know a jot of relativity to “stumble” across it.
I found it by simply using GM / r and calculating it for every radius
including 4.12. Put them into a table of data and noticed that the
larger r was... the smaller GM/r was. 1/2,1,3,1/4 etc.
All I did then was experiment and first divide into 9192631770.
Then 10.23Mhz and finally c^2.

> >>>>> Newton didn’t. But classical physics does. And it works.
>
> >> Newtonian physics only uses it for potential energy per unit mass.
>
> >>>>> Albeit with error margins of 0.00021 vs Relativity’s 0.0001..
>
> >> Obviously misapplied Newtonian physics is wrong.
>
> >>>>> After all c^2 is just a number
> >>>> No, it is not. It has dimensionality of length²/time².
> >>>>
> >>> What SI unit is it?
>
> >> Can't you read? Length²/time² or in SI, meters²/seconds².
> >
> > So meters²/seconds² is what in the formula..acceleration?
>
> No, acceleration is meters/seconds².
> >
> >>>>> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats
> >>>>> faster at higher altitudes.
> >>
> >>>> No, the satellite clocks are designed to tick at the correct rate and
> >>>> not to be affected by external events. That's why they are so accurate,
> >>>> they can't be affected by external things like a ground level Cs clock
> >>>> being affected by the gravity of a fat scientist walking by it. Besides,
> >>>> any "resonant frequency" effects would be proportional to force, which
> >>>> varies as 1/r², but the altitude effect varies at 1/r. And the clocks
> >>>> are in freefall, so there is no force or 1/r² effect on them. Newtonian
> >>>> physics nothing is affected proportional to 1/r other than the potential
> >>>> energy of a mass.
> >>
> >>> A clock at the top of Everest also has clock gains under classical theory using
> >>> GM/r. Yet it’s not in free fall.
> >> So it has a force on it, yet it still works correctly, showing how a
> >> properly operating clock works correctly in freefall or not in freefall.
> >> The Schwarzschild metric still applies, of course.
> >
> > Yes and it also resonates at a higher frequency. And predicted as well
> > by the classical resonance formula (GM/r)-(GM/r’) ÷ f.
>
> That is a miswritten version of relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
> GM/rc². Again, congratulations for stumbling across the metric, but
> Schwarzschild beat you to it by more than 100 years.
>
No he didn’t. His was GM/rc^2. And it doesn’t give 5.27e-10
Nothing like it.
You relativist made up your latest “correct “ formula to try to
retrodict relativity into the 442 ms/day observed by the first GpS test.
You had no idea before 1977 what the clock gain would be for r4.12
....until the first GPS told you how much.

> > Although you’ll have to be careful when you ask them. They get
> > really touchy when you point out that their “spacey metric” term or whatever
> > they call it is actually just force of gravity by another name.
>
> And again, I must conclude you are really, really stooopid for repeating
> that despite repeated correction. I'll mention YET AGAIN that the
> Schwarzschild metric varies as 1/r while force/acceleration of gravity
> varies as 1/r².
>
> > Anyways the fact is harmonic oscillators
>
> ...which would vary as 1/r²...

Incorrect. GPS has proved that harmonic oscillators will resonate
at different frequencies relative to r,
And you can’t prove otherwise.

> > have been observed to resonate at
> > higher frequencies when less force is exerted on them
>
> Some higher and some lower. A properly designed clock will not have
> anything that varies with gravitational force (excluding pendulum clocks
> which use gravity as part of their operation).
>
> > and this effect
> > has been well understood for centuries I believe.
>
> Which is why scientists designed such effects out of clocks as best they
> can. As well as effects of thermal expansion, friction etc. that have to
> be eliminated in accurate clocks.

On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> waves are received on the ground.
> How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?

The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?

--
Rich

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 22:04:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> Some higher and some lower. A properly designed clock will not have
> anything that varies with gravitational force (excluding pendulum clocks
> which use gravity as part of their operation).

What a pity that people measuriing the reality instead
your moronic gedankenwelt didn't share your opinion
of how a properly designed clock should look like:(
Isn't it, stupid Mike?

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 22:23:50 UTC, RichD wrote:
> On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > waves are received on the ground.
> > How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
> The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
> at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?
>
> --
> Rich

Unfortunately as smart as Prokaryotic may be, he made a big boo boo here.
For instance the source emits 1000000000 waves in time x.
The observer is at a certain distance. Could the observer even see all those
waves and even one more during same time frame? No. Not unless the observers eyeball
was pressed up against the source the whole time . And blind themselves. And even
then no Doppler shift would be possible seeing as the observers eye can’t get any
closer during time x.
Or if the observer was at a distance and moving towards the source then it doesn’t
matter how many waves the source has emitted during time x. Because the
observer will be seeing some waves that already been emitted before time x
started. Seeing as the observer was at a distance from the source when
time x started.
As Maciej correctly pointed out . And the observer won’t see the last
few waves the source emitted during time x either unless at the end of time x the
observers eyeball had banged up against the source just when time x finished.
Etc etc

On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:01:05 UTC, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 22:23:50 UTC, RichD wrote:
> > On January 13, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> > > are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> > > waves are received on the ground.
> > > How does Doppler shifting explain where the extra wave come from?
> > The Pound Rebka experiment counted individual wave crests,
> > at 10 ^ 19 Hz, to 12 digits of precision?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Unfortunately as smart as Prokaryotic may be, he made a big boo boo here.
> For instance the source emits 1000000000 waves in time x.
> The observer is at a certain distance. Could the observer even see all those
> waves and even one more during same time frame? No. Not unless the observers eyeball
> was pressed up against the source the whole time . And blind themselves. And even
> then no Doppler shift would be possible seeing as the observers eye can’t get any
> closer during time x.
> Or if the observer was at a distance and moving towards the source then it doesn’t
> matter how many waves the source has emitted during time x. Because the
> observer will be seeing some waves that already been emitted before time x
> started. Seeing as the observer was at a distance from the source when
> time x started.
> As Maciej correctly pointed out . And the observer won’t see the last
> few waves the source emitted during time x either unless at the end of time x the
> observers eyeball had banged up against the source just when time x finished.
> Etc etc
And I forgot to finish the last example. Because if the observer was at a distance
from the source and moving towards the source when time x started. But had their
eye right up against the source when time x finished. Then logic dictates that the observer
would have seen all 1000000000 waves the source emitted during time x ...AND the extra
waves it had already emitted before time x had started.