On Monday 15 January 2024 at 05:02:05 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:05:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, 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?
> > They are called compression waves and this is a blue shift.
> Compression waves are transient. They cannot explain a persistent
> mismatch between a frequency measured at the source (a GPS satellite)
> and the frequency measured on the ground.

There is no need of explaining as the difference
was gedanken/fabricated by some brainwashed
religious maniacs.

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:29:57 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 05:02:05 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:05:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, 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?
> > > They are called compression waves and this is a blue shift.
> > Compression waves are transient. They cannot explain a persistent
> > mismatch between a frequency measured at the source (a GPS satellite)
> > and the frequency measured on the ground.
> There is no need of explaining as the difference
> was gedanken/fabricated by some brainwashed
> religious maniacs.

Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
outing with the kids:
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:29:57 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 05:02:05 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:05:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, 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?
> > > > They are called compression waves and this is a blue shift.
> > > Compression waves are transient. They cannot explain a persistent
> > > mismatch between a frequency measured at the source (a GPS satellite)
> > > and the frequency measured on the ground.
> > There is no need of explaining as the difference
> > was gedanken/fabricated by some brainwashed
> > religious maniacs.
> Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> outing with the kids:
> http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
>
> Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm

It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators.
Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
longer match the receivers frequency.
But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
No Relativity and magic waves needed.

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 11:46:32 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:29:57 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 05:02:05 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:05:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, 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?
> > > > They are called compression waves and this is a blue shift.
> > > Compression waves are transient. They cannot explain a persistent
> > > mismatch between a frequency measured at the source (a GPS satellite)
> > > and the frequency measured on the ground.
> > There is no need of explaining as the difference
> > was gedanken/fabricated by some brainwashed
> > religious maniacs.
> Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that

that is gedanken/fabricated by your idiot guru
and his brainwashed minions.

even
> amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> outing with the kids:
> http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

Have you ever heard of a phenomenon called "clock
error"? A very classical one, well known to Galileo, Newton
and most of 10 years old children.
I bet you have. What is demonstrated in your link is a
[gravitational, indeed] clock error. Similiar to your
delusional dilation in many aspects, but also different
in a little detail.

Can you discuss the difference between the 2 mentioned
phenomena or can you only get offended and run?

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:18:08 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> > amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> > outing with the kids:
> > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
> >
> > Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm
> It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
> for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
> study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
> external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
> So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
> are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
> One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
> frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
> with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators.
> Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
> change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
> by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
> GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
> by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
> So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
> longer match the receivers frequency.
> But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
> shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
> frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
> will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
> No Relativity and magic waves needed.

Please study this diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
have all measured different amounts of gravitational time
dilation.

All have been in freefall while doing so. Freefall means
*zero g-forces* acting on the clocks.

Weightless is weightless.

Your hypothesis of clock rate being dependent on the force
of gravity doesn't work. On the other hand, the observed
amounts of time dilation match the predictions of GR.

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 14:04:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:18:08 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> > > amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> > > outing with the kids:
> > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
> > >
> > > Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm
> > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
> > for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
> > study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
> > external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
> > So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
> > are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
> > One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
> > frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
> > with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators..
> > Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
> > change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
> > by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
> > GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
> > by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
> > So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
> > longer match the receivers frequency.
> > But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
> > shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
> > frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
> > will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
> > No Relativity and magic waves needed.
> Please study this diagram:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
> Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> have all measured different amounts of gravitational time
> dilation.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. All these
networks have their clocks in sync, against
the prophecies of your insane religion.

> All have been in freefall while doing so. Freefall means
> *zero g-forces* acting on the clocks.

Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. There are no g-forces
according to it; just another common sense prejudice
refuted by your idiot guru.

>
> Your hypothesis of clock rate being dependent on the force
> of gravity doesn't work. On the other hand, the observed
> amounts of time dilation match the predictions of GR.

Again, a lie. Time (according to the own definition
of your idiot guru) is what clocks indicate, the clocks
of Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
have their clocks in sync (i.e. indicating t'=t). Good bye,
The Shit, common sense was warning

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 13:04:44 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:18:08 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> > > amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> > > outing with the kids:
> > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
> > >
> > > Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm
> > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
> > for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
> > study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
> > external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
> > So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
> > are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
> > One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
> > frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
> > with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators..
> > Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
> > change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
> > by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
> > GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
> > by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
> > So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
> > longer match the receivers frequency.
> > But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
> > shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
> > frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
> > will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
> > No Relativity and magic waves needed.
> Please study this diagram:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
> Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> have all measured different amounts of gravitational time
> dilation.
>
> All have been in freefall while doing so. Freefall means
> *zero g-forces* acting on the clocks.
>

A good example of how basing your physics on the occult
is pseudoscience.
If there was no force of gravity acting on any object while it
was in “freefall” then it wouldn’t be in freefall. GPS satelittes
would now all be somewhere out past Pluto by now.
Fortunately there still is gravity acting on all mass whether
it’s orbitting earth at speed . Or whether it’s a clock at the top
of Everest
Notice your cult theory prediction that gravity vanishes in freefall is proven
wrong as a clock at the top of Everest will experience the same amount of
clock gains proportional to height as a GPS satelitte.
The only difference will be that the Everest clock will experience less
clock loss than the GPS sat from its lesser velocity relative to earth Center frame.

> Weightless is weightless.
>
> Your hypothesis of clock rate being dependent on the force
> of gravity doesn't work.

Odd thing to say when Einstein himself said clock rates would be
dependent on the force of gravity vs r.
But not surprising from a cult member who thinks extra waves magically
appear in emr due to occult predictions made when consulting a ouija board.

> On the other hand, the observed
> amounts of time dilation match the predictions of GR.

Not surprising considering GR uses GM/r and the force of gravity at different
radius to predict clock gains. Something Albert stole from classical physics
which already predicted the same clock gains vs altitude using GM/r

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 13:56:13 UTC, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 14:04:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:18:08 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > > > Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> > > > amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> > > > outing with the kids:
> > > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
> > > >
> > > > Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> > > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> > > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm
> > > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > > out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > > As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
> > > for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
> > > study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
> > > external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
> > > So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
> > > are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
> > > One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
> > > frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
> > > with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators.
> > > Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
> > > change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
> > > by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
> > > GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
> > > by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
> > > So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
> > > longer match the receivers frequency.
> > > But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
> > > shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
> > > frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
> > > will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
> > > No Relativity and magic waves needed.
> > Please study this diagram:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
> > Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> > GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> > have all measured different amounts of gravitational time
> > dilation.
> A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. All these
> networks have their clocks in sync, against
> the prophecies of your insane religion.
> > All have been in freefall while doing so. Freefall means
> > *zero g-forces* acting on the clocks.
> Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. There are no g-forces
> according to it; just another common sense prejudice
> refuted by your idiot guru.
> >
> > Your hypothesis of clock rate being dependent on the force
> > of gravity doesn't work. On the other hand, the observed
> > amounts of time dilation match the predictions of GR.
> Again, a lie. Time (according to the own definition
> of your idiot guru) is what clocks indicate, the clocks
> of Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> have their clocks in sync (i.e. indicating t'=t). Good bye,
> The Shit, common sense was warning

Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a
good example of how facism can take many guises.
Whether it’s in politics, race or even science.
I wonder if Jimmy Wales, founder of wiki, knows proke is deliberately
taking advantage of wiki and falsifying wiki physics pages to enforce
his own biased occult theories on physics.
Although I don’t imagine Jimmy Wales is interested in the facts.
He’s too rich.
Nonetheless I recommend any one who cares about the truth to email
Jim and point out extremists like Proke have taken control of wiki physics pages.

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 15:27:51 UTC+1, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 13:56:13 UTC, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 14:04:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:18:08 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon that even
> > > > > amateur clock enthusiasts can demonstrate on a weekend
> > > > > outing with the kids:
> > > > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
> > > > >
> > > > > Eleven years later he repeated the demonstration
> > > > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> > > > > http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm
> > > > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > > > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > > > out of nowhere. Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > > > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > > > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > > > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > > > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > > > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> > > > As I already have done in this thread where a classical explanation
> > > > for GPS clock gains and GM/r uses resonance and the centuries old
> > > > study of harmonic oscillators. And how an oscillator will respond to
> > > > external force by changing its natural resonant frequency.
> > > > So if both emitter reciever are at same level, both have atoms which
> > > > are harmonic oscillators and both have the same resonant frequencies.
> > > > One emits at a narrow frequency as defined by its natural resonant
> > > > frequency & one absorbs only at that same frequency. Consistent
> > > > with centuries of observations on the behaviour of harmonic oscillators.
> > > > Change altitude for one and its natural resonant frequency will also
> > > > change thanks to a different force being exerted via gravity as modelled
> > > > by GM/r. (Einstein too realised gravitational forces could be modelled by
> > > > GM/r and borrowed the idea. And pretended he hadn’t stolen the idea
> > > > by giving gravity another name in his various theories)
> > > > So if the emitter is placed higher, then it’s emission f will no
> > > > longer match the receivers frequency.
> > > > But....Doppler shifting will make one direction of the vibration a Doppler
> > > > shifted frequency of the emitter that matches again the absorbers resonant
> > > > frequency. And that peak of the two Doppler shifted peaks in your wiki page,
> > > > will have more counts than the other peak, as observed
> > > > No Relativity and magic waves needed.
> > > Please study this diagram:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
> > > Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> > > GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> > > have all measured different amounts of gravitational time
> > > dilation.
> > A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. All these
> > networks have their clocks in sync, against
> > the prophecies of your insane religion.
> > > All have been in freefall while doing so. Freefall means
> > > *zero g-forces* acting on the clocks.
> > Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. There are no g-forces
> > according to it; just another common sense prejudice
> > refuted by your idiot guru.
> > >
> > > Your hypothesis of clock rate being dependent on the force
> > > of gravity doesn't work. On the other hand, the observed
> > > amounts of time dilation match the predictions of GR.
> > Again, a lie. Time (according to the own definition
> > of your idiot guru) is what clocks indicate, the clocks
> > of Gaia, the Galileo satellites, the Beidou satellites, the
> > GPS satellites, the GLONASS satellites, GP-A, and DSAC
> > have their clocks in sync (i.e. indicating t'=t). Good bye,
> > The Shit, common sense was warning
> Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a
> good example of how facism can take many guises.
> Whether it’s in politics, race or even science.
> I wonder if Jimmy Wales, founder of wiki, knows proke is deliberately
> taking advantage of wiki and falsifying wiki physics pages to enforce
> his own biased occult theories on physics.

It's not his own theory, and has established in physics
a long time before wiki appeared. Brainwashing ,
fanatism and lies are the same, wiki or not.

Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
>>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
>>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
>>>>>>

The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:

|> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
|>>
|>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
|>> are a fixed distance apart.
|>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
|>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
|>>
|>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
|>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
|>>
|>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
|>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
|>>
|>> ...and so on and so forth.

The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m

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

There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
magically out of nowhere".
The point is that both the source and the observer
measure time with their own, local clocks.
Loosely expressed:
The observer's second is longer than the source's second,
so the 'extra wave' received by the observer is simply the first
wave in the source's next second.

> Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.

Even if your explanation for the different rate of the clocks
was right (which it isn't), the result would be the same as
described above. So why do you call it "extra theoretical waves"
and "theoretical blue shift"? All the waves are real, and
the gravitational blue shift is real.

The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.

And note: If the sender in the source is switched on and off
so that a limited number of cycles are emitted, then
the number of received cycles is always equal to the number
of emitted cycles.

To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
taken from the real world:

At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.

The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.

Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s

The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz

Please answer:
How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 15.01.2024 15:27, skrev Lou:
>
> Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a
> good example of how facism can take many guises.

You arguments are getting better and better, Lou! :-D

Keep it up, the sky is the limit!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> >>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> >>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
> >>>>>>
> The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:
>
> |> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
> Homolog wrote:
> |>>
> |>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
> |>> are a fixed distance apart.
> |>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
> |>>
> |>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
> |>>
> |>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
> |>>
> |>> ...and so on and so forth.
> The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m
> >
> > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > out of nowhere.
> There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> magically out of nowhere".

Under relativity...yes there is. Because according to many of your
own quotes the gps clock runs at the same time as the earth clock
doesnt it? Yet its frequency has increased by the time the earth
reciever observed it? Is that correct.?
If the GPS satelitte emits a lower frequency than that recieved.
Then under classical physics that means an extra wave appears
Out of nowhere. Now I DO UNDERSTAND that under the magic
of relativity you have excuses about magic goblins. But those
excuses are not acceptable under a classical model.
So it’s a draw. Your magic says no waves appear out of nowhere.
My physics say they do.

> The point is that both the source and the observer
> measure time with their own, local clocks.
> Loosely expressed:
> The observer's second is longer than the source's second,
> so the 'extra wave' received by the observer is simply the first
> wave in the source's next second.
> > Wasn’t you trying to prove Doppler shifting in a classical
> > model created extra imaginary waves. I realised that your extra imaginary
> > magic wave comes from...Theoretical gravitational blueshift!
> > But you forgot what I have explained numerous times on this thread.
> > One can explain this apparent blueshifting without relativity and without
> > adding magic relativistic waves. Simply by using atomic resonance.
> Even if your explanation for the different rate of the clocks
> was right (which it isn't),

Maybe not if you don’t like physics.
But so far I have not heard any evidence from you proving that
Harmonic oscillators when subjected to additional external force
will NOT increase their natural resonant frequency.

> the result would be the same as
> described above. So why do you call it "extra theoretical waves"
> and "theoretical blue shift"? All the waves are real, and
> the gravitational blue shift is real.
>

You forgot to take into account the fact that the redshifted
light from the Doppler shift is only being emitted 1/2 the time.
It vibrates * back and forth*. Lots of space in between.
And let me assure you...if the source only moved towards
the absorber at the same speed...the experiment would
probably last less than a second. And there would be
no more blue shifted waves received than were emitted.
Unlike relativity which has extra magic waves appear
out of nowhere.

> The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
> frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.
>
> And note: If the sender in the source is switched on and off
> so that a limited number of cycles are emitted, then
> the number of received cycles is always equal to the number
> of emitted cycles.
>
> To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
> taken from the real world:
>
> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
>
> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
>
> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>
> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>
> Please answer:

!! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.
Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
question prove? That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?

> How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
> How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
>
Let me guess..umm ....
....sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
How close was I ?
And more importantly what’s your point?

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 21:05:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.01.2024 15:27, skrev Lou:
> >
> > Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a
> > good example of how facism can take many guises.
> You arguments are getting better and better, Lou! :-D
>
> Keep it up, the sky is the limit

Well,..I suppose it’s wrong for me to use the f- word above but,...
...you do seem to enjoy telling people what to do.
And you do have a cult like worship for a divine leader

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 21:05:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 15.01.2024 15:27, skrev Lou:
> > >
> > > Proke’s nonsensical pseudoscientific editing of wiki physics pages is a
> > > good example of how facism can take many guises.
> > You arguments are getting better and better, Lou! :-D
> >
> > Keep it up, the sky is the limit
> Well,..I suppose it’s wrong for me to use the f- word above but,....
> ..you do seem to enjoy telling people what to do.
> And you do have a cult like worship for a divine leader

Unfortunately, you are so totally incompetent, that it
is not even amusing to see you fumble.

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

Phaselock

On 1/14/2024 10:36 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:15:57 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> 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, have you heard of disagreeing? I obviously know that yet I still disagree. You are just one of the faithful misled by the pseudoscience of relativity. Relativity doesn't cause anything and everyone here has been trying to help you understand that.

Again, you keep arguing arguments which you have been told are wrong
repeatedly yet you keep trying to use them. Again, learn GR before
declaring it wrong, a 'pseudoscience' (crackpot sign) or a cult/religion
(another obvious crackpot sign).

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

> 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.

Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
at optical wavelengths.

In particular, I note that Gaia has verified the relativistic
prediction to the µas level.

The density of the Sun's atmosphere is well established. Even if
the atmosphere comprised ordinary atomic species, it would be
hundreds of times too tenuous to account for the deflection effect.

But the Sun's atmosphere does not comprise ordinary atomic
species. Polarizable atomic species which could contribute to
optical refraction are virtually non-existent above a few
thousand kilometers above the surface of the Sun (i.e. above
the chromosphere and the solar transition region of the Sun's
atmosphere).

In refractive media, each atom or molecule acts like a little
polarizable dipole, the electrons of which are driven back and
forth by the incoming electromagnetic field (the positive nuclei
are too heavy to be pushed around much). These dipoles absorb
incoming light and re-radiate the light to produce waves of the
same frequency as the driving field. Because the resonant
frequency of the dipole does not match the frequency of the
driving light, the re-radiated light will be slightly out of
phase with the driving field. The net result of this absorbance
and re-radiation is to produce a beam in the same direction as
the original beam, with the same frequency as the incoming beam,
but with a slight delay. The cumulative effect of these delays
is to slow the speed of the wave passing through the medium.

Early astronomers studying the visible spectrum of the corona
found bright emission lines at wavelengths that didn't correspond
to known elements. This mystery was resolved when it was
discovered that, above a transition zone a few thousand kilometers
above the surface, the coronal gases are heated to temperatures
greater than 1,000,000°C. At such temperatures all of the lighter
elements (hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are
stripped down to bare nuclei. Spectral lines visible in the corona
(above the bright continuous background of the "K-corona") comes
from heavier trace elements like iron and calcium which are able
to retain a few of their electrons.

The solar corona, therefore, consists mostly of bare nuclei and
free electrons. The free electrons do not represent polarizable
dipoles that will absorb and reradiate light in a manner that will
contribute to refractive index. Free electrons will scatter light
due to Thomson scattering. Because of the free electrons' high
speeds in the temperatures ranging from 1,000,000°C to 2,000,000°C,
scattered photons are Doppler shifted and cannot add coherently
with other photons to produce a refractive index effect.

Thomson scattering is responsible for the bright inner part of
the solar corona, called the "K-corona", which extends out to a
distance of about two solar radii. The K-corona displays a
linearly polarized continuous spectrum representing scattered
light from the photosphere. There are no Fraunhofer lines in the
spectrum because of the large Doppler broadening effects
mentioned above.

(The outer part of the Sun's corona, the F corona, is due mainly
to sunlight scattered by dust particles. The light scattered by
these dust particles has the same spectrum as the photosphere,
including its Fraunhofer lines.)

So, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to contribute
significantly to the measured deflection of light, its
composition is entirely wrong.

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 21:56:54 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.01.2024 12:18, skrev Lou:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 10:46:32 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 7:05:57 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>> Let us suppose that, in a given time period, 1000000000000 waves
> >>>>>> are emitted by an EM source on a high tower, and 1000000000001
> >>>>>> waves are received on the ground.
> >>>>>>
> The thought experiment was defined a bit more precisely here:
>
> |> On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 23:36:42 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase
> Homolog wrote:
> |>>
> |>> I was describing a situation where source and observer
> |>> are a fixed distance apart.
> |>> After one second, source emits 1000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 1000000000001 waves.
> |>>
> |>> After 10 seconds, source emits 10000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 10000000000010 waves.
> |>>
> |>> After 100 seconds, source emits 100000000000000 waves and
> |>> the observer receives 100000000000100 waves.
> |>>
> |>> ...and so on and so forth.
> The height of the tower is h ≈ 95.73 m
> >
> > It only occurred to me after I posted to you last time that in your gedanken
> > the reason why you had an extra imaginary wave seemingly to appear magically
> > out of nowhere.
> There is no "imaginary wave seemingly to appear
> magically out of nowhere".
> The point is that both the source and the observer
> measure time with their own, local clocks.

And anyone can check GPS, the clocks are in sync,
despite your efforts to enforce your mad delusions.

> Loosely expressed:
> The observer's second is longer than the source's second,

No it is not. You've fabricated that.

> The received frequency is really higher than the emitted
> frequency even if all the emitted cycles are received.

No it's not.

> To illustrate this let's make a thought experiment
> taken from the real world:

A thought experiment is thought, not taken from real
world.

> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s

Anyone can check GPS (or GLONASS or GALILEO or etc), your
moronic delusions have nothing in common with the
real clocks.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 06:23:03 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
> account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
> microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
> optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
> any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
> at optical wavelengths.

The Shit is predicting no deflection, however.
It predicts light [in vacuum] taking always
straight/geodesic paths. And you're a lying
piece of shit, what was known before.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:58:19 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 06:23:03 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
> > account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
> > microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
> > optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
> > any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
> > at optical wavelengths.
> The Shit is predicting no deflection, however.
> It predicts light [in vacuum] taking always
> straight/geodesic paths. And you're a lying
> piece of shit, what was known before.

You ***ALWAYS*** get what GR has to say screwed up.

First of all, the known range of electron densities in the solar
wind means that group delay associated with the plasma along the
ray paths of the various Mercury and Venus Shapiro delay
measurements should be less than 2 microseconds out of hundreds
of microseconds for the total delay, which is pretty much
negligible.

Second, light always follows the ***path of least action,***
which does not have to be straight. If you interpose a prism
between a source and a target, the path of least action is a bent
line from the source to the prism where the light is bent as it
enters and exits the faces of the prism, finally heading off to
the target. If bouncing off a mirror, the path that the light
takes from source to target will be the path of least action.

In spacetime around a massive body, the path of least action is
a curved line following along the geodesic.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 10:05:53 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:58:19 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 06:23:03 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
> > > account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
> > > microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
> > > optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
> > > any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
> > > at optical wavelengths.
> > The Shit is predicting no deflection, however.
> > It predicts light [in vacuum] taking always
> > straight/geodesic paths. And you're a lying
> > piece of shit, what was known before.
> You ***ALWAYS*** get what GR has to say screwed up.
>
> First of all, the known range of electron densities in the solar
> wind means that group delay associated with the plasma along the
> ray paths of the various Mercury and Venus Shapiro delay
> measurements should be less than 2 microseconds out of hundreds
> of microseconds for the total delay, which is pretty much
> negligible.
>
> Second, light always follows the ***path of least action,***
> which does not have to be straight. If you interpose a prism
> between a source and a target, the path of least action is a bent
> line from the source to the prism where the light is bent as it
> enters and exits the faces of the prism, finally heading off to
> the target. If bouncing off a mirror, the path that the light
> takes from source to target will be the path of least action.
>
> In spacetime around a massive body, the path of least action is
> a curved line following along the geodesic.

Maybe the Cassini data was consistent with GR.
Nonetheless Bertotti et al, who wrote the definitive papers on
the Cassini data did not test for refraction. Even if they wanted to they
even admitted they couldn’t as the data for two seperate frequency
measurements was corrupted and compressed into one combined
frequency.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 05:23:03 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
> account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
> microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
> optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
> any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
> at optical wavelengths.
>
> In particular, I note that Gaia has verified the relativistic
> prediction to the µas level.
>
So what. Tentative ‘proof’ of one theory does not disprove
another. Especially considering you nor Gaia tested the data
against the “other” theory, refraction.
And not least because refraction itself has been proven to exist
and is well understood as a real physical phenomena for centuries.

> The density of the Sun's atmosphere is well established. Even if
> the atmosphere comprised ordinary atomic species, it would be
> hundreds of times too tenuous to account for the deflection effect.
>

The density of the suns atmosphere is so poorly understood in that
the most recent data (HAWC, FERMILAB) etc admits as much.
For instance Gamma radiation from sun is 8 times greater
than current standard model predicts OR can explain.

> But the Sun's atmosphere does not comprise ordinary atomic
> species. Polarizable atomic species which could contribute to
> optical refraction are virtually non-existent above a few
> thousand kilometers above the surface of the Sun (i.e. above
> the chromosphere and the solar transition region of the Sun's
> atmosphere).
>
All fantasy theory based on a deeply flawed standard model that even now
fails to model even the most basic properties of its atmosphere.
Let alone it’s interior. As cited above and in the fact current models of
physics and stellar formation which are also unable to explain other things
like the very high temps of Corona.

> In refractive media, each atom or molecule acts like a little
> polarizable dipole, the electrons of which are driven back and
> forth by the incoming electromagnetic field (the positive nuclei
> are too heavy to be pushed around much).

Ritz Rydberg formula, spectral lines etc proves spectra is a purely
harmonic series.
And particles cannot explain this harmonic function.
Time to ditch the standard model if it cannot even describe spectral lines.

> These dipoles absorb
> incoming light and re-radiate the light to produce waves of the
> same frequency as the driving field. Because the resonant
> frequency of the dipole does not match the frequency of the
> driving light, the re-radiated light will be slightly out of
> phase with the driving field. The net result of this absorbance
> and re-radiation is to produce a beam in the same direction as
> the original beam, with the same frequency as the incoming beam,
> but with a slight delay. The cumulative effect of these delays
> is to slow the speed of the wave passing through the medium.
>

All fantasy speculation if you think the above somehow proves
Refraction cannot explain any of the solar data.
Especially so since the standard model cannot explain the data.

> Early astronomers studying the visible spectrum of the corona
> found bright emission lines at wavelengths that didn't correspond
> to known elements. This mystery was resolved when it was
> discovered that, above a transition zone a few thousand kilometers
> above the surface, the coronal gases are heated to temperatures
> greater than 1,000,000°C.

Exactly. And the standard model cannot explain the hi temp.
Another failure of the model

>>At such temperatures all of the lighter
> elements (hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are
> stripped down to bare nuclei. Spectral lines visible in the corona
> (above the bright continuous background of the "K-corona") comes
> from heavier trace elements like iron and calcium which are able
> to retain a few of their electrons.
>
> The solar corona, therefore, consists mostly of bare nuclei and
> free electrons. The free electrons do not represent polarizable
> dipoles that will absorb and reradiate light in a manner that will
> contribute to refractive index. Free electrons will scatter light
> due to Thomson scattering. Because of the free electrons' high
> speeds in the temperatures ranging from 1,000,000°C to 2,000,000°C,
> scattered photons are Doppler shifted and cannot add coherently
> with other photons to produce a refractive index effect.
>
Such a fact free. Fantasy ridden assumption. As I’ve pointed out
all the fantasy facts that you use above to “prove” refraction cannot explain
Cassini data ...is from a failed theory that cannot itself
come anywhere near to explaining the excess heat and Corona etc of the sun.
And you forgot that on top of all your failed theories failed assumptions
the only good chance we had to test, Cassini, didn’t test for refraction

> Thomson scattering is responsible for the bright inner part of
> the solar corona, called the "K-corona", which extends out to a
> distance of about two solar radii. The K-corona displays a
> linearly polarized continuous spectrum representing scattered
> light from the photosphere. There are no Fraunhofer lines in the
> spectrum because of the large Doppler broadening effects
> mentioned above.
>
Irrelevent facts arbitrarily picked from a physics text book. A couple of lines
of text including “Fraunhofer” and Doppler shifting is about as inadequate a
Proof as I’ve ever read.

> (The outer part of the Sun's corona, the F corona, is due mainly
> to sunlight scattered by dust particles. The light scattered by
> these dust particles has the same spectrum as the photosphere,
> including its Fraunhofer lines.)
>
Yes...I’m waiting for the punch line. Exactly how does this prove That
refraction cannot explain ...explain what? Fraunhofer lines?
Ridiculous.
I find it hilarious how you grab a one line here, a line there from a physics
text book. Put them together and try to con readers into thinking
your factoid concoction means refraction cannot explain Cassini data.
Or any data from the sun.
Let’s face it, the only theory that failed to-explain the sun was the standard
model. As I have pointed out it continues to fail every time new data comes
in. And yet you have the nerve to tell us that this failed theory proves what?
That refraction cannot explain your failed theory?

> So, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to contribute
> significantly to the measured deflection of light, its
> composition is entirely wrong.

A blizzard of half truths, misinformation, false assumptions and irrelevent facts.
Doesn’t disguise the fact that Cassini, the best and only mission data to
test for refraction ...was not sufficient to do so.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 11:05:53 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:58:19 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 06:23:03 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > Although the plasma index of refraction needs to be taken into
> > > account for solar deflection and Shapiro delay experiments at
> > > microwave wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction for IR and
> > > optical wavelengths is 1.000000000... and cannot possibly have
> > > any effect on tests of the deflection of light around the Sun
> > > at optical wavelengths.
> > The Shit is predicting no deflection, however.
> > It predicts light [in vacuum] taking always
> > straight/geodesic paths. And you're a lying
> > piece of shit, what was known before.
> You ***ALWAYS*** get what GR has to say screwed up.

Oppositely, you do.

>
> First of all, the known range of electron densities in the solar
> wind means that group delay associated with the plasma along the
> ray paths of the various Mercury and Venus Shapiro delay
> measurements should be less than 2 microseconds out of hundreds
> of microseconds for the total delay, which is pretty much
> negligible.
>
> Second, light always follows the ***path of least action,***
> which does not have to be straight.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
The choice Poincare has predicted - is real: either
Euclidean space and deflected light or non-euclidean
space and straight light.
The outcome predicted by him is also real.
"It is needless to add that every one would look upon this
solution as the more advantageous. "
Yeah, every one. Even the maniacs from your church. You've
banned Euclid forthe sake your mad ideology and you're
silently restoring him for the sake of practice.

Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
> On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Let's make a thought experiment
>> taken from the real world:

Please read the following again.
There are a lot of geostationary satellites orbiting the Earth,
and everything I write below does happen in the real world.

We KNOW how clocks behave in the vicinity of the Earth.
It is in accordance with the predictions of GR, but this
may be by coincidence, so maybe you have the right theory. :-J

But in either case, THIS IS HOW THEY BEHAVE!

>>
>> At equator at longitude 0⁰ is a clock A.
>> In a geostationary satellite at longitude 0⁰ is a clock B.
>> This is equivalent to a 35796724 m high tower.
>>
>> The period of one rotation of the Earth is one sidereal day.
>>
>> Clock A will measure each rotation of the Earth to last:
>> τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
>> Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
>> τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s
>>
>> The geostationary satellite transmits a radio carrier with frequency:
>> f₁ = 10.0000000000000 GHz
>> Clock A receives the blue shifted signal:
>> f₀ = f₁⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 10.0000000053915 GHz
>>
>> Please answer:

>
> !! Yes my divine leader, I was right. You guys are all pushy fascists.

Right.
Thou shall not have any other leader than Us!
Be humble and show respect!

> Anyways...Obviously you have the answer. So tell us what exactly does your math
> question prove?

There is no GR math above.

We know that clocks in geostationary satellites run
fast relative to UTC by the factor (1 + 5.3915E-10).
Isn't that what your theory predicts?
You know, the gravitational force at altitude 35796724 m
is less than it is on the Earth, so the Cs atom vibrates
faster because the pressure is less.

It's very simple. The Earth rotates once a sidereal day.
So clock A advances during one rotation:
τ₀ = 86164.09050000000 s (this is one sidereal day measured with UTC)
Clock B will measure each rotation of the Earth to last a bit longer:
τ₁ = τ₀⋅(1+5.3915E-10) = 86164.09054645538 s

Of course you understand this, you are not stupid! Or are you?

The geostationary satellite transmits a carrier with frequency
f₁ = 10 GHz.
During one rotation of the Earth the number of cycles emitted is:
N₁ = τ₁⋅f₁ = 86164.09054645538s⋅10E9 Hz = 861640905464553.8 cycles

The observer on the ground will obviously receive all these cycles
during one rotation of the Earth, which last a time τ₀.
So the frequency received at the ground MUST be:
f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = 861640905464553.8/86164.09050000000 = 10.0000000053915 GHz
f₀ = N₁/τ₀ = τ₁⋅f₁/τ₀ = (τ₁/τ₀)⋅f₁ = (1+5.3915E-10)⋅f₁

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

Or don't you understand it?

> That the satelitte is being vibrated back and forth like
> the source in pound Rebka? We were talking about Pound Rebka werent we?

You are not an idiot, so why are you pretending to be?
Or are you not pretending?

>> How many cycles are emitted from B during one rotation of the Earth?
>> How many cycles are received by A during one rotation of the Earth?
>>
> Let me guess..umm ....
> ...sixteen SR goblins times 141/2 GR dimensions = 105684e+696 cycles?
> Or do you need the answer in dozens of spaced out metrics?
> How close was I ?
> And more importantly what’s your point?

But now you know the answer, don't you?

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

Or don't you know that?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 13:30:49 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.01.2024 22:48, skrev Lou:
> > On Monday 15 January 2024 at 20:56:54 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Let's make a thought experiment
> >> taken from the real world:
> Please read the following again.
> There are a lot of geostationary satellites orbiting the Earth,
> and everything I write below does happen in the real world.
>
> We KNOW how clocks behave in the vicinity of the Earth.

You KNOW the bullshitty prophecies of your idiot guru
and take them for the reality. The real reality is - the
clocks keep sync, unless nobody cares.