On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> *on the geoid*. But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.

The official definition of the second makes no reference to
the geoid. "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical
value of the caesium frequency ∆ν, the unperturbed ground-state
hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be
9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."

International Atomic Time, on the other hand, corresponds to
proper time at the geoid. TAI comprises a weighted average of
hundreds of atomic clocks around the world, their readings
being corrected for the height of the individual clocks relative
to the geoid. Events around the globe may be timestamped
according to this scale.

The second does not change with altitude of a clock above
or below the geoid. Our *observations* of a clock's readings,
however, *does* depend on the gravitational potential
difference between the clock's position and our own.

On 1/20/2024 3:41 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>> Paul wrote
>>>> Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
>>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
>>>> they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
>>>> wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
>>>> There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
>>>> extremely high precision.
>>> Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
>>> B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ...
>>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
>>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
>> That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to have
>> a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
>> for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
>> different number of times per second.
>
> Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies
> can still beat out the same length of a second.

Yes and no. The second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycle times. All
other clocks need to be calibrated against the defined second, meaning
something or other needs to be measured. For example a Rb clock needs
the Rb transition time to be measured. I know scientists have measured
that to many sig figs so a Rb clock is nearly as good as a Cs clock.

> After
> having said the opposite earlier in that he had tried to say a second
> cannot be comprised of any amount of beats. Just 9192631770.! :-D

By definition, 9192631770 Cs cycles is the defined second.

> So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
> beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1
> up there in space.

Except 9192631774.1 cycles isn't a second. It's a tiny bit longer.

> And this is confirmed by observations.

The blueshift of the signal sent to earth was calculated using GR, and
9192631774.1 was calculated as the amount needed to counteract the
blueshift. That's why the satellite '10.23 MHz' carrier, which is
generated by using the divisor 9192631774.1 in the Cs clock (instead of
9192631770) actually transmits at 10.2299999954326 MHz.

> GPS sat clocks do
> indeed best faster per second up there.

Nope. A second is a second is a second, and 1 second aboard the
satellite is still 9192631770 Cs cycles. Despite the fact a signal is
generated and used using a cycle time of 9192631774.1 Cs cycles.

> You admitted it yourself
> when you admitted the divisor has to be set to count 9292631774.1
> beats per second to match the second on earth.

I admitted no such thing, the "beats per second" is added by YOU.
>
>> Particularly for Cs clocks, since
>> the second is DEFINED as the time taken for 9192631770 Cs atom
>> transitions. DEFINED. Not 5, not 3333333333, not 9192631774.1, but
>> 9192631770 transitions is exactly 1 second.
>
> You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> *on the geoid*.

NO IT IS NOT. Quit inventing garbage and pretending that it's the truth!
A second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycles on a (local) Cs clock.

> But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.

No, it does not. A second is still 9192631770 Cs cycles local to the
satellite clock. Remember, the earth's surface is NOT local to the
satellite's clock, so a second on earth will not be 9192631770 cycles of
the satellite's clock, but it will be 9192631770 cycles of a local Cs
clock. That's because of the blueshift of the signal.

> That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.

It is NOT defined 'at the geoid'. Quit making up garbage. The geoid and
altitude are NOT mentioned in the definition of the second. They did not
want the second to depend on anything other than the nature of Cs atoms,
and that includes the geoid, not available in space for example.

> If you look up atomic clocks
> etc you will see that the most accurate “second” has to be derived by
> comparing atomic clocks at different potentials to determine what the
> official geoid second is.

Nope. They average multiple Cs clocks to avoid failure of one "master"
clock. They've since added compensation for the various different
altitudes of individual clocks so they have a super-accurate reference
for TAI or UTC times for example, which DO depend on being defined at
the geoid.

> Why? Because the same atomic clock will have
> a different frequency at different altitudes.

Nope. An observer at the geoid will measure an atomic clock in Quito as
running a touch fast (while the Quito observer will measure a London
clock as running a touch slow) only because of the altitude difference
between Quito and the geoid/London. If the Quito clock participates in
the multi-clock timebase, its signal will be compensated for the
altitude difference, to generate a geoid-accurate TAI or UTC time. (and
yes, a Quito observer may complain that a TAI clock runs too slow)

> And thus give a different second
> length at different altitudes.

Nope. A second is DEFINED as 9192631770 Cs transition times of a Local
Cs clock. Regardless of altitude. Altitude is not part of the definition
of the second.

> And it is therefore the frequency of the atomic clock *at the geoid* that
> defines the internationally accepted standard for a second.

Again, no. The Cs cycle time on a LOCAL clock.

> Not the frequency of the same atomic clock at the top of Everest.

The frequency at the top of Everest is correct -- for an observer on
Everest. Introduce a blueshift for the signal from Everest to sea level
and a difference will be seen.

> So yes ......the observations confirm that caesium atoms DO beat
> at faster rates at higher altitudes as predicted by a non relativistic classical
> model. Contrary to your above false claim that they dont!!!

Nope. A second is still 9192631770 Cs transition times, regardless of
altitude. Remember, the whole idea between the "new" (1967) second
definition was to reduce dependence on physical objects (like the earth)
as much as possible. As it is, anyone with some cesium and the
technology to make it into an atomic clock will get an exact second.
Regardless of altitude or even if 1000 light years away from earth.

You simply don't understand the concept of signals being redshifted or
blueshifted when going between different gravitational potentials or speeds.

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 06:50:09 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > *on the geoid*. But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> The official definition of the second makes no reference to

Take your "official definition" and put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs. A shark
won't start to eat hay just because some idiots
defined it as a hay eater, even if the idiots are
official.

> International Atomic Time, on the other hand, corresponds to
> proper time at the geoid.

And will you explain how your Shit is defining "proper
time" for a set of rotating clocks? How one should
synchronize them?
Let me guess: you can't. But you can get offended
and run.

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 07:19:56 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 3:41 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>> Paul wrote
> >>>> Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
> >>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
> >>>> they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
> >>>> wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
> >>>> There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
> >>>> extremely high precision.
> >>> Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
> >>> B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ...
> >>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
> >>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
> >> That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to have
> >> a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
> >> for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
> >> different number of times per second.
> >
> > Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies
> > can still beat out the same length of a second.
> Yes and no. The second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycle times.

And communism is defined as the best political system
of the world, stupid Mike.

All
> other clocks need to be calibrated against the defined second, meaning

meaning that sane people are ignoring your ideological
madness.

Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 12:46:03 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> We are not "in a classical model", or in "a relativistic model."
>> We are in the real world!
>>
>
> Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
> up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.

Right!

Here is the definition of a second we use in the real world:
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value
of the cesium frequency ∆ν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to
be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is
equal to s⁻¹."

All normal clocks which use second as the time unit
are build according to this definition.
The difference between your wristwatch and an atomic
clock is only the precision of the clock.

So yes, all normal clocks run at their normal rate
and ticks out a second per second everywhere and always.

This is the DEFINITION of "time" as used by engineers
and physicist in the real world.

>
>> In the real geostationary satellite in the real world
>> there is a real, normal atomic clock ticking out seconds
>> as defined by SI. The only way to measure time in the real
>> geostationary satellite is to use this real clock.
>> And when this satellite sends a signal with frequency f₁= 10GHz
>> then there are 10E9 cycles per second measured by the real normal clock.
>>
>> Since we agree that this real clock "up there" will run
>> fast by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC,
>> you must also agree to the following:
>>

> This real clock up there isn’t running fast relative to UTC.

So you have changed your mind? :-D

>> Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC
>
>
> Wrong. You forgot. The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.

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

We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!

The rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock in circular orbit is:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Δf/f = dτ/dt_utc - 1 = - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc

where:
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
δutc = 6.96927E-10
(1 + δutc) is the rate of UTC relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time

Normal clock in GPS orbit:
---------------------------
p = 43082.04525 s (orbital period half a sidereal day)
r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 26561763 m.

A normal clock in GPS orbit runs fast by
Δf/f = 4.4647E-10
relative to UTC.

Normal clock in Galileo orbit:
------------------------------
r = 29600000 m

A normal clock in Galileo orbit runs fast by
Δf/f = 4.7218E-10
relative to UTC.

Normal clock in GLONASS orbit:
-------------------------------
Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m
Altitude of orbit h = 19100000 m
r = h + R = 25478137 m

A normal clock in GLONASS orbit runs fast by
Δf/f = 4.3582E-10
relative to UTC.

Normal clock in geostationary orbit:
------------------------------------
p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m

A normal clock in geostationary orbit runs fast by
Δf/f = 5.391498E-10
relative to UTC.

Note that these predictions by GR are thoroughly confirmed
for GPS, Galileo and GLONASS, so there is no reason to doubt
that it also will be correct for a clock in geostationary
orbit.
_________________________________________________________________

So clock B in the geostationary orbit runs at the rate
(1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC.

Previously you claimed that "the classical model" predicted
the same as GR for the rate of clocks "up there".

Now you seem to have changed your mind.

So please tell me:
What is the rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock
in geostationary orbit?

Is it (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC as we know is correct,
or is it something else?

Hint: Look up UTC.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
>
> The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
> And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
> faster.
Right!

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

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

Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
in GPS orbit runs fast relative to UTC by the factor (1+4.4647E-10).

Thanks for reminding me of this confirmation of the GR-prediction.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 05:50:09 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > *on the geoid*. But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> The official definition of the second makes no reference to
> the geoid. "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical
> value of the caesium frequency ∆ν, the unperturbed ground-state
> hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be
> 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."
>
> International Atomic Time, on the other hand, corresponds to
> proper time at the geoid. TAI comprises a weighted average of
> hundreds of atomic clocks around the world, their readings
> being corrected for the height of the individual clocks relative
> to the geoid. Events around the globe may be timestamped
> according to this scale.
>
> The second does not change with altitude of a clock above
> or below the geoid. Our *observations* of a clock's readings,
> however, *does* depend on the gravitational potential
> difference between the clock's position and our own.

That’s the difference between the two theories. Relativity says
the second length doesn’t change but that due to gravitational effects
like blueshifting the second length only appears to change to the ground observer.
On the other hand the non relativist classical model says due to
gravitational effects the clock atoms increase their frequency per second
and the second length only appears to change to the ground observer.

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 06:19:56 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 3:41 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>> Paul wrote
> >>>> Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
> >>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
> >>>> they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
> >>>> wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
> >>>> There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
> >>>> extremely high precision.
> >>> Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
> >>> B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ....
> >>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
> >>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
> >> That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to have
> >> a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
> >> for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
> >> different number of times per second.
> >
> > Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies
> > can still beat out the same length of a second.
> Yes and no. The second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycle times. All
> other clocks need to be calibrated against the defined second, meaning
> something or other needs to be measured. For example a Rb clock needs
> the Rb transition time to be measured. I know scientists have measured
> that to many sig figs so a Rb clock is nearly as good as a Cs clock.
> > After
> > having said the opposite earlier in that he had tried to say a second
> > cannot be comprised of any amount of beats. Just 9192631770.! :-D
> By definition, 9192631770 Cs cycles is the defined second.
> > So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
> > beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1
> > up there in space.
> Except 9192631774.1 cycles isn't a second. It's a tiny bit longer.
> > And this is confirmed by observations.
> The blueshift of the signal sent to earth was calculated using GR, and
> 9192631774.1 was calculated as the amount needed to counteract the
> blueshift. That's why the satellite '10.23 MHz' carrier, which is
> generated by using the divisor 9192631774.1 in the Cs clock (instead of
> 9192631770) actually transmits at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> > GPS sat clocks do
> > indeed best faster per second up there.
> Nope. A second is a second is a second, and 1 second aboard the
> satellite is still 9192631770 Cs cycles. Despite the fact a signal is
> generated and used using a cycle time of 9192631774.1 Cs cycles.
> > You admitted it yourself
> > when you admitted the divisor has to be set to count 9292631774.1
> > beats per second to match the second on earth.
> I admitted no such thing, the "beats per second" is added by YOU.
> >
> >> Particularly for Cs clocks, since
> >> the second is DEFINED as the time taken for 9192631770 Cs atom
> >> transitions. DEFINED. Not 5, not 3333333333, not 9192631774.1, but
> >> 9192631770 transitions is exactly 1 second.
> >
> > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > *on the geoid*.
> NO IT IS NOT. Quit inventing garbage and pretending that it's the truth!
> A second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycles on a (local) Cs clock.
> > But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> No, it does not. A second is still 9192631770 Cs cycles local to the
> satellite clock. Remember, the earth's surface is NOT local to the
> satellite's clock, so a second on earth will not be 9192631770 cycles of
> the satellite's clock, but it will be 9192631770 cycles of a local Cs
> clock. That's because of the blueshift of the signal.
> > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> It is NOT defined 'at the geoid'. Quit making up garbage. The geoid and
> altitude are NOT mentioned in the definition of the second. They did not
> want the second to depend on anything other than the nature of Cs atoms,
> and that includes the geoid, not available in space for example.
> > If you look up atomic clocks
> > etc you will see that the most accurate “second” has to be derived by
> > comparing atomic clocks at different potentials to determine what the
> > official geoid second is.
> Nope. They average multiple Cs clocks to avoid failure of one "master"
> clock. They've since added compensation for the various different
> altitudes of individual clocks so they have a super-accurate reference
> for TAI or UTC times for example, which DO depend on being defined at
> the geoid.
> > Why? Because the same atomic clock will have
> > a different frequency at different altitudes.
> Nope. An observer at the geoid will measure an atomic clock in Quito as
> running a touch fast (while the Quito observer will measure a London
> clock as running a touch slow) only because of the altitude difference
> between Quito and the geoid/London. If the Quito clock participates in
> the multi-clock timebase, its signal will be compensated for the
> altitude difference, to generate a geoid-accurate TAI or UTC time. (and
> yes, a Quito observer may complain that a TAI clock runs too slow)
> > And thus give a different second
> > length at different altitudes.
> Nope. A second is DEFINED as 9192631770 Cs transition times of a Local
> Cs clock. Regardless of altitude. Altitude is not part of the definition
> of the second.
> > And it is therefore the frequency of the atomic clock *at the geoid* that
> > defines the internationally accepted standard for a second.
> Again, no. The Cs cycle time on a LOCAL clock.
> > Not the frequency of the same atomic clock at the top of Everest.
> The frequency at the top of Everest is correct -- for an observer on
> Everest. Introduce a blueshift for the signal from Everest to sea level
> and a difference will be seen.
> > So yes ......the observations confirm that caesium atoms DO beat
> > at faster rates at higher altitudes as predicted by a non relativistic classical
> > model. Contrary to your above false claim that they dont!!!
> Nope. A second is still 9192631770 Cs transition times, regardless of
> altitude. Remember, the whole idea between the "new" (1967) second
> definition was to reduce dependence on physical objects (like the earth)
> as much as possible. As it is, anyone with some cesium and the
> technology to make it into an atomic clock will get an exact second.
> Regardless of altitude or even if 1000 light years away from earth.
>
> You simply don't understand the concept of signals being redshifted or
> blueshifted when going between different gravitational potentials or speeds.

Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second
length matches the ground second. And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.
But then in complete contradiction you then say that all these Cs clocks
aren’t beating at different frequencies or running at different speeds at
different altitudes. And that they only magically appear to be running at
different speeds.
I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774..1
beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:13:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 12:46:03 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> We are not "in a classical model", or in "a relativistic model."
> >> We are in the real world!
> >>
> >
> > Great! And in this real world 1 second down here is equivelent to one second
> > up there. Unless you are a delusional relativist.
> Right!
>
> Here is the definition of a second we use in the real world:
> "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value
> of the cesium frequency ∆ν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
> hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to
> be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is
> equal to s⁻¹."
>
> All normal clocks which use second as the time unit
> are build according to this definition.
> The difference between your wristwatch and an atomic
> clock is only the precision of the clock.
>
> So yes, all normal clocks run at their normal rate
> and ticks out a second per second everywhere and always.
>
> This is the DEFINITION of "time" as used by engineers
> and physicist in the real world.
> >
> >> In the real geostationary satellite in the real world
> >> there is a real, normal atomic clock ticking out seconds
> >> as defined by SI. The only way to measure time in the real
> >> geostationary satellite is to use this real clock.
> >> And when this satellite sends a signal with frequency f₁= 10GHz
> >> then there are 10E9 cycles per second measured by the real normal clock.
> >>
> >> Since we agree that this real clock "up there" will run
> >> fast by the factor (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC,
> >> you must also agree to the following:
> >>
> > This real clock up there isn’t running fast relative to UTC.
>
> So you have changed your mind? :-D
>
> >> Clock B in the satellite runs at the rate (1+5.3915E-10) relative to UTC
> >
> >
> > Wrong. You forgot. The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> > One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> No, I haven't forgot that the clock in a GPS SV
> is not a normal clock.
> It ticks out only 0.99999999946085 seconds per seconds.
> It runs too slow to be a normal clock.
>

Hilarious. You just said earlier in your post that the GPS clock
has the same length second as the ground clock. Now you say it
doesnt. Make up your mind.
But don’t worry I’m used to you making completely contradictory
claims just to prove that magic relativist goblins are responsible
for making clocks appear to have different second lengths at
different altitudes. Even though in fact a second up there is
the same length as a second down here. It’s just that the clock
atoms beat at a different frequency per second up there.
No relativity needed.

> We are talking about a NORMAL clock in geostationary orbit!
>
>
> The rate relative to UTC of a NORMAL clock in circular orbit is:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Δf/f = dτ/dt_utc - 1 = - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc
>
> where:
> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> c = 299792458 m/s
> δutc = 6.96927E-10
> (1 + δutc) is the rate of UTC relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time
>
> Normal clock in GPS orbit:
> ---------------------------
> p = 43082.04525 s (orbital period half a sidereal day)
> r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 26561763 m.
>
> A normal clock in GPS orbit runs fast by
> Δf/f = 4.4647E-10
> relative to UTC.
>
> Normal clock in Galileo orbit:
> ------------------------------
> r = 29600000 m
>
> A normal clock in Galileo orbit runs fast by
> Δf/f = 4.7218E-10
> relative to UTC.
>
> Normal clock in GLONASS orbit:
> -------------------------------
> Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m
> Altitude of orbit h = 19100000 m
> r = h + R = 25478137 m
>
> A normal clock in GLONASS orbit runs fast by
> Δf/f = 4.3582E-10
> relative to UTC.
>
> Normal clock in geostationary orbit:
> ------------------------------------
> p = 86164.0905 s (orbital period one sidereal day)
> r = cbrt(GM⋅p²/4π²) = 42164169.6241 m
>
> A normal clock in geostationary orbit runs fast by
> Δf/f = 5.391498E-10
> relative to UTC.
>
>
> Note that these predictions by GR are thoroughly confirmed
> for GPS, Galileo and GLONASS, so there is no reason to doubt
> that it also will be correct for a clock in geostationary
> orbit.

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

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

And thanks for agreeing with me that this is also a confirmation of
the non relativistic classical model prediction. Seeing as you just admitted that
the GPS orbit clocks atoms frequency is faster per second then when on the ground
and needs to be corrected by an onboard divisor.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 5:07:30 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 05:50:09 UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > > *on the geoid*. But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> > > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> > The official definition of the second makes no reference to
> > the geoid. "The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical
> > value of the caesium frequency ∆ν, the unperturbed ground-state
> > hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be
> > 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."
> >
> > International Atomic Time, on the other hand, corresponds to
> > proper time at the geoid. TAI comprises a weighted average of
> > hundreds of atomic clocks around the world, their readings
> > being corrected for the height of the individual clocks relative
> > to the geoid. Events around the globe may be timestamped
> > according to this scale.
> >
> > The second does not change with altitude of a clock above
> > or below the geoid. Our *observations* of a clock's readings,
> > however, *does* depend on the gravitational potential
> > difference between the clock's position and our own.
> That’s the difference between the two theories. Relativity says
> the second length doesn’t change but that due to gravitational effects
> like blueshifting the second length only appears to change to the ground observer.
> On the other hand the non relativist classical model says due to
> gravitational effects the clock atoms increase their frequency per second
> and the second length only appears to change to the ground observer.

You are still confused.

Gravitational effects (by which I presume that you mean the
force of gravity) do not affect clock atoms' frequency, even in
the conglomeration of inconsistent assumptions that
constitutes the non-GR heuristic "explanation" of gravitational
time dilation. Einstein was perfectly aware that his pre-GR
heuristic arguments presented in 1907-11 were leaky, and the
holes could be repaired only with development of a full theory.

You, on the other hand, consistently get your arguments
mixed up. The relevant parameter to watch is not the "force
of gravity" but rather the "difference in gravitational potential",
and you aren't going to manage a non-GR fully wave theory
explanation without running into the issue of "tick fairies".

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 12:02:17 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.01.2024 15:09, skrev Lou:
> >
> > The GPS clock has a divisor. And it measures
> > One second to be 9192631774.1 beats a second.
> > At which point the sat sends this data back to earth ground.
> > And guess what..,,! It matches ground seconds. It ISNT runnimg
> > faster.
> Right!
>
> To stay in sync with UTC the clock in a GPS SV is adjusted

And your pathetic lies of your SI idiocy ruling the clocks
on orbits t are just pathetic lies.

> to run slower than a normal SI-clock by the factor (1-4.4647E-10).

And to keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always do.

>
> It is thoroughly confirmed that it then IS in sync with UTC,

BTW, you really could use some education. GPS is not
synchronized with UTC, nor even with TAI.

> Which is a beautiful confirmation of the fact that a normal SI-clock
> in GPS orbit runs

WOULD run. Like most of the relativistic idiots: the difference
between "be" and "would be" is uncomprehendable to you.

Everybody in this thread is over-thinking this and getting bogged down
in irrelevancies. In particular, the meaning of "time" is not important
-- everything can be, and should be, expressed in terms of clock
readings, because they are what is measured.

On 1/20/24 11:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> The second does not change with altitude of a clock above or below
> the geoid.

Yes.

The words "one second" are defined to mean "the duration of 9192631770
cycles of the unperturbed hyperfine ground-state transition of the
Cs-133 atom". This definition applies anywhere and anywhen, but must
only be used locally (i.e. the Cs-133 atom must be co-located and
co-moving with whatever is being timed).

> Our *observations* of a clock's readings, however, *does* depend on
> the gravitational potential difference between the clock's position
> and our own.

Note we simply cannot observe a clock that is not co-located with us.
What we observe are SIGNALS from the clock, usually EM signals (light,
radio). It should be obvious that one must account for how those signals
are measured, and how that varies with distance, location, and relative
motion, as the signals are NOT the distant clock.

It should also be obvious that a clock can only measure time intervals
between events on its worldline. So to model how a clock measures the
intervals between signals from a distant clock, those signals must be
geometrically projected onto the measuring clock's worldline.

[This geometrical projection is in spacetime -- one cannot
avoid that when discussing clocks located at different
positions in space, or moving relative to each other.]

For the case of a standard clock on a GPS satellite emitting radio
signals at 10.22999999543 MHz, those signals are measured on earth's
geoid to arrive at 10.23000000000 MHz (by a standard clock located
there). General Relativity models such measurements very accurately, as
due solely to that geometrical projection.

[In GR, clocks, signals, and all other physical processes
are not affected by gravity (spacetime curvature). But
geometry is affected, as are geometrical projections.]

Tom Roberts

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 16:17:46 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Everybody in this thread is over-thinking this and getting bogged down
> in irrelevancies. In particular, the meaning of "time" is not important

Any experimental evidence for this idiotic claim, poor
hafbrain?

> -- everything can be, and should be, expressed in terms of clock
> readings, because they are what is measured.

And anyone can check GPS, the clock readings are -
t'=t, just like they always were.

> On 1/20/24 11:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > The second does not change with altitude of a clock above or below
> > the geoid.
> Yes.
>
> The words "one second" are defined to mean "the duration of 9192631770
> Cs-133 atom". This definition applies anywhere and anywhen, but must

Wanna a quoting whery you admit that in the context
of GPS the word has a different meaning, poor lying
piece of shit?

> For the case of a standard clock on a GPS satellite emitting radio
> signals at 10.22999999543 MHz

The measurement result - direct comparing the signal
with the local clock reading - gives a different result.
Sorry, trash.

> [In GR, clocks, signals, and all other physical processes
> are not affected by gravity (spacetime curvature). But

But in the real world they are. Too bad for The Shit.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:27:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 06:19:56 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/20/2024 3:41 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>>> Paul wrote
> > >>>> Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
> > >>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
> > >>>> they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
> > >>>> wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
> > >>>> There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
> > >>>> extremely high precision.
> > >>> Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
> > >>> B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ...
> > >>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
> > >>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
> > >> That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to have
> > >> a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
> > >> for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
> > >> different number of times per second.
> > >
> > > Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies
> > > can still beat out the same length of a second.
> > Yes and no. The second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycle times. All
> > other clocks need to be calibrated against the defined second, meaning
> > something or other needs to be measured. For example a Rb clock needs
> > the Rb transition time to be measured. I know scientists have measured
> > that to many sig figs so a Rb clock is nearly as good as a Cs clock.
> > > After
> > > having said the opposite earlier in that he had tried to say a second
> > > cannot be comprised of any amount of beats. Just 9192631770.! :-D
> > By definition, 9192631770 Cs cycles is the defined second.
> > > So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
> > > beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1
> > > up there in space.
> > Except 9192631774.1 cycles isn't a second. It's a tiny bit longer.
> > > And this is confirmed by observations.
> > The blueshift of the signal sent to earth was calculated using GR, and
> > 9192631774.1 was calculated as the amount needed to counteract the
> > blueshift. That's why the satellite '10.23 MHz' carrier, which is
> > generated by using the divisor 9192631774.1 in the Cs clock (instead of
> > 9192631770) actually transmits at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> > > GPS sat clocks do
> > > indeed best faster per second up there.
> > Nope. A second is a second is a second, and 1 second aboard the
> > satellite is still 9192631770 Cs cycles. Despite the fact a signal is
> > generated and used using a cycle time of 9192631774.1 Cs cycles.
> > > You admitted it yourself
> > > when you admitted the divisor has to be set to count 9292631774.1
> > > beats per second to match the second on earth.
> > I admitted no such thing, the "beats per second" is added by YOU.
> > >
> > >> Particularly for Cs clocks, since
> > >> the second is DEFINED as the time taken for 9192631770 Cs atom
> > >> transitions. DEFINED. Not 5, not 3333333333, not 9192631774.1, but
> > >> 9192631770 transitions is exactly 1 second.
> > >
> > > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > > *on the geoid*.
> > NO IT IS NOT. Quit inventing garbage and pretending that it's the truth!
> > A second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycles on a (local) Cs clock.
> > > But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> > No, it does not. A second is still 9192631770 Cs cycles local to the
> > satellite clock. Remember, the earth's surface is NOT local to the
> > satellite's clock, so a second on earth will not be 9192631770 cycles of
> > the satellite's clock, but it will be 9192631770 cycles of a local Cs
> > clock. That's because of the blueshift of the signal.
> > > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> > It is NOT defined 'at the geoid'. Quit making up garbage. The geoid and
> > altitude are NOT mentioned in the definition of the second. They did not
> > want the second to depend on anything other than the nature of Cs atoms,
> > and that includes the geoid, not available in space for example.
> > > If you look up atomic clocks
> > > etc you will see that the most accurate “second” has to be derived by
> > > comparing atomic clocks at different potentials to determine what the
> > > official geoid second is.
> > Nope. They average multiple Cs clocks to avoid failure of one "master"
> > clock. They've since added compensation for the various different
> > altitudes of individual clocks so they have a super-accurate reference
> > for TAI or UTC times for example, which DO depend on being defined at
> > the geoid.
> > > Why? Because the same atomic clock will have
> > > a different frequency at different altitudes.
> > Nope. An observer at the geoid will measure an atomic clock in Quito as
> > running a touch fast (while the Quito observer will measure a London
> > clock as running a touch slow) only because of the altitude difference
> > between Quito and the geoid/London. If the Quito clock participates in
> > the multi-clock timebase, its signal will be compensated for the
> > altitude difference, to generate a geoid-accurate TAI or UTC time. (and
> > yes, a Quito observer may complain that a TAI clock runs too slow)
> > > And thus give a different second
> > > length at different altitudes.
> > Nope. A second is DEFINED as 9192631770 Cs transition times of a Local
> > Cs clock. Regardless of altitude. Altitude is not part of the definition
> > of the second.
> > > And it is therefore the frequency of the atomic clock *at the geoid* that
> > > defines the internationally accepted standard for a second.
> > Again, no. The Cs cycle time on a LOCAL clock.
> > > Not the frequency of the same atomic clock at the top of Everest.
> > The frequency at the top of Everest is correct -- for an observer on
> > Everest. Introduce a blueshift for the signal from Everest to sea level
> > and a difference will be seen.
> > > So yes ......the observations confirm that caesium atoms DO beat
> > > at faster rates at higher altitudes as predicted by a non relativistic classical
> > > model. Contrary to your above false claim that they dont!!!
> > Nope. A second is still 9192631770 Cs transition times, regardless of
> > altitude. Remember, the whole idea between the "new" (1967) second
> > definition was to reduce dependence on physical objects (like the earth)
> > as much as possible. As it is, anyone with some cesium and the
> > technology to make it into an atomic clock will get an exact second.
> > Regardless of altitude or even if 1000 light years away from earth.
> >
> > You simply don't understand the concept of signals being redshifted or
> > blueshifted when going between different gravitational potentials or speeds.
> Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
> GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
> as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second
> length matches the ground second. And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
> at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.
> But then in complete contradiction you then say that all these Cs clocks
> aren’t beating at different frequencies or running at different speeds at
> different altitudes. And that they only magically appear to be running at
> different speeds.
> I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.

If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?

What mechanism? Any special reason to
believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Everybody in this thread is over-thinking this and getting bogged down
> in irrelevancies. In particular, t̶h̶e̶ m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ o̶f̶ "t̶i̶m̶e̶" i̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶ i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶n̶t̶
> -- e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶, a̶n̶d̶ s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶, e̶x̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶d̶ i̶n̶ t̶e̶r̶m̶s̶ o̶f̶ c̶l̶o̶c̶k̶
> r̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶s̶, b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶y̶ a̶r̶e̶ w̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ m̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶d̶.
>
> On 1/20/24 11:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>> The second does not change with altitude of a clock above or below the
>> geoid.
>
> Yes.

you sir appears flagrantly wrong as well. You don't know what is going on.
The clocks are irrelevant, but the passage of time, which is crucial. You
don't even need a clock, but any single atom, or material thing related
and expressed 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢_𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙢_𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 into the 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤_𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙚_𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣. Automatically
includes time. An observer, as material, will suffice. That's also what
creates gravity, the amplitude and the probability distribution, which can
be large or small, super_positioned. I beg you to reconsider.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:17:22 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:27:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 06:19:56 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > On 1/20/2024 3:41 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 18:45:43 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 1/20/2024 5:17 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > >>>> Paul wrote
> > > >>>> Both clock A and B are clocks which ticks out seconds as defined by SI.
> > > >>>> *It doesn't matter if the atomic clocks are based on Cs, Rb or H,
> > > >>>> they all ticks out seconds as defined by SI.* And so does your
> > > >>>> wristwatch and all clocks which use second as the time unit.
> > > >>>> There is nothing special about atomic clocks other than their
> > > >>>> extremely high precision.
> > > >>> Your logic is impeccably screwed as usual. If you agree that both A and
> > > >>> B clocks must have the same length of seconds in a *classical model* ...
> > > >>> regardless of how many times their atoms beat per second. And regardless
> > > >>> of their altitude in a classical non relativistic model.
> > > >> That sentence is self-contradictory. Atomic clocks are designed to have
> > > >> a certain constant number of transitions per second. It is impossible
> > > >> for a properly operating atomic clock to have their atoms 'beat' a
> > > >> different number of times per second.
> > > >
> > > > Notice Paul was admitting above that any clock with any different frequencies
> > > > can still beat out the same length of a second.
> > > Yes and no. The second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycle times. All
> > > other clocks need to be calibrated against the defined second, meaning
> > > something or other needs to be measured. For example a Rb clock needs
> > > the Rb transition time to be measured. I know scientists have measured
> > > that to many sig figs so a Rb clock is nearly as good as a Cs clock.
> > > > After
> > > > having said the opposite earlier in that he had tried to say a second
> > > > cannot be comprised of any amount of beats. Just 9192631770.! :-D
> > > By definition, 9192631770 Cs cycles is the defined second.
> > > > So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
> > > > beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1
> > > > up there in space.
> > > Except 9192631774.1 cycles isn't a second. It's a tiny bit longer.
> > > > And this is confirmed by observations.
> > > The blueshift of the signal sent to earth was calculated using GR, and
> > > 9192631774.1 was calculated as the amount needed to counteract the
> > > blueshift. That's why the satellite '10.23 MHz' carrier, which is
> > > generated by using the divisor 9192631774.1 in the Cs clock (instead of
> > > 9192631770) actually transmits at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> > > > GPS sat clocks do
> > > > indeed best faster per second up there.
> > > Nope. A second is a second is a second, and 1 second aboard the
> > > satellite is still 9192631770 Cs cycles. Despite the fact a signal is
> > > generated and used using a cycle time of 9192631774.1 Cs cycles.
> > > > You admitted it yourself
> > > > when you admitted the divisor has to be set to count 9292631774.1
> > > > beats per second to match the second on earth.
> > > I admitted no such thing, the "beats per second" is added by YOU.
> > > >
> > > >> Particularly for Cs clocks, since
> > > >> the second is DEFINED as the time taken for 9192631770 Cs atom
> > > >> transitions. DEFINED. Not 5, not 3333333333, not 9192631774.1, but
> > > >> 9192631770 transitions is exactly 1 second.
> > > >
> > > > You forgot. The second is defined as a 9192631770 beats a second
> > > > *on the geoid*.
> > > NO IT IS NOT. Quit inventing garbage and pretending that it's the truth!
> > > A second is defined as 9192631770 Cs cycles on a (local) Cs clock.
> > > > But at higher altitudes the ceasium clock beats faster.
> > > No, it does not. A second is still 9192631770 Cs cycles local to the
> > > satellite clock. Remember, the earth's surface is NOT local to the
> > > satellite's clock, so a second on earth will not be 9192631770 cycles of
> > > the satellite's clock, but it will be 9192631770 cycles of a local Cs
> > > clock. That's because of the blueshift of the signal.
> > > > That’s why the second is defined as 9192631770 at the geoid and
> > > > not at the top of Everest or any other altitude.
> > > It is NOT defined 'at the geoid'. Quit making up garbage. The geoid and
> > > altitude are NOT mentioned in the definition of the second. They did not
> > > want the second to depend on anything other than the nature of Cs atoms,
> > > and that includes the geoid, not available in space for example.
> > > > If you look up atomic clocks
> > > > etc you will see that the most accurate “second” has to be derived by
> > > > comparing atomic clocks at different potentials to determine what the
> > > > official geoid second is.
> > > Nope. They average multiple Cs clocks to avoid failure of one "master"
> > > clock. They've since added compensation for the various different
> > > altitudes of individual clocks so they have a super-accurate reference
> > > for TAI or UTC times for example, which DO depend on being defined at
> > > the geoid.
> > > > Why? Because the same atomic clock will have
> > > > a different frequency at different altitudes.
> > > Nope. An observer at the geoid will measure an atomic clock in Quito as
> > > running a touch fast (while the Quito observer will measure a London
> > > clock as running a touch slow) only because of the altitude difference
> > > between Quito and the geoid/London. If the Quito clock participates in
> > > the multi-clock timebase, its signal will be compensated for the
> > > altitude difference, to generate a geoid-accurate TAI or UTC time. (and
> > > yes, a Quito observer may complain that a TAI clock runs too slow)
> > > > And thus give a different second
> > > > length at different altitudes.
> > > Nope. A second is DEFINED as 9192631770 Cs transition times of a Local
> > > Cs clock. Regardless of altitude. Altitude is not part of the definition
> > > of the second.
> > > > And it is therefore the frequency of the atomic clock *at the geoid* that
> > > > defines the internationally accepted standard for a second.
> > > Again, no. The Cs cycle time on a LOCAL clock.
> > > > Not the frequency of the same atomic clock at the top of Everest.
> > > The frequency at the top of Everest is correct -- for an observer on
> > > Everest. Introduce a blueshift for the signal from Everest to sea level
> > > and a difference will be seen.
> > > > So yes ......the observations confirm that caesium atoms DO beat
> > > > at faster rates at higher altitudes as predicted by a non relativistic classical
> > > > model. Contrary to your above false claim that they dont!!!
> > > Nope. A second is still 9192631770 Cs transition times, regardless of
> > > altitude. Remember, the whole idea between the "new" (1967) second
> > > definition was to reduce dependence on physical objects (like the earth)
> > > as much as possible. As it is, anyone with some cesium and the
> > > technology to make it into an atomic clock will get an exact second.
> > > Regardless of altitude or even if 1000 light years away from earth.
> > >
> > > You simply don't understand the concept of signals being redshifted or
> > > blueshifted when going between different gravitational potentials or speeds.
> > Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
> > GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
> > as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second
> > length matches the ground second. And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
> > at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.
> > But then in complete contradiction you then say that all these Cs clocks
> > aren’t beating at different frequencies or running at different speeds at
> > different altitudes. And that they only magically appear to be running at
> > different speeds.
> > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
>
>
> That "the theories" don't even have a reason why gravity makes a force,
> or "what makes the curves of space-time and particularly what straightens
> it back out", has that "the theories" don't altogether have any way to explain
> the fact that the gradient of the force vector of what's modeled as attraction
> always points instant-by-instant at the source, not the image, in a world
> where the position of objects in space indicates and is indicated.
>
> All objects orbit each other.
>
> Here the idea is that not just a Fatio/LeSage push gravity, but an extension
> of that a fall gravity, provides a neat sort of reasoning why all objects in
> the universe effectively have their gravity wells, as of occluding the otherwise
> tendency of fall, or drift. So, when you hear "shadow gravity" or "supergravity"
> it's similar, and even the "spin foam" is just that sort of idea a particle model.
>
>
> The idea that objects bring their space with them, "atoms are mostly space",
> and that bubbles of space enter and leave or transit otherwise space, or free space,
> goes a long way toward Einstein's "spacial" (the "spatial" for the "special", a bit
> of a play on words that Einstein might chuckle about), goes a long way for
> space contraction.
>
> Then, besides usually the Doppler and classical which it is all first,
> then here the sidereal and that circular (...) orbits as it were are always
> under acceleration, then is about the atomic clock mechanism.
>
> Anyways most people have never encountered an instruction into
> that for classical models, there are superclassical models.
>
> It's pretty certain though that in the Solar System, the gradient of
> the force vector that indicates relative acceleration, points at the
> source not the image, and whatever idea that "space is curved thusly
> at a given instant", says nothing about how it's done, or un-done.
>
> So, if space is curved, that being a simplest model then to compute
> the linear velocity and first-order acceleration at a given instant,
> do you have any kind of notion of that the geodesy is kept current,
> at all?
>
>
>
> Mathematical models and physical interpretation of course are great,
> applying all of them all the time.
>
>
> So, the geodesy is its contents. Gravity is considered not just a good idea.
> Do you have a theory of the gravitic, or gravific if you will, in your theory,
> or just an abstract imposition?
>
> Who made you G-d?

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 18:17:22 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> > > I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> > > resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> > > beats per second due to the effects of gravity. And needs to be corrected by an
> > > onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.
> > If that's what they do then what's the mechanism?
> What mechanism? Any special reason to
> believe your Great Mystical Mechanism?

Fall Gravity? Fall Gravity and the strong nuclear being the same? Unifying field
theory with the kinetic and charge, and the weak and light-like?

It's an exercise in "axiomless natural deduction", after the canon,
with all the data of Big Science, right in the middle of GR and QM.

It's a continuum mechanics. So, it has a superclassical model.

Then of course for foundations you'd need a constant, consistent, complete,
concrete theory of everything, so you might want to have a foundations of
logic and mathematics that's a sort of paleo-classical post-modern foundations
of logic and mathematics, and of course including the replete definitions of
continuity for including at least three definitions of continuous domains
that meet at the integers: line-reals, the usual standard field-reals, and signal-reals.

No reason why not.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

(A public service)

Volney wrote:

>> So by the same token there should be no problem with a caesium clock
>> beating out 9192631770 beats per second on earth. And 9192631774.1 up
>> there in space.
>
> Except 9192631774.1 cycles isn't a second. It's a tiny bit longer.

that tiny bit can be billions of years along another scale domain. You
𝙗𝙞𝙜_𝙥𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙨 are definitely not engineers. You don't know what is going on.
For instance 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩 is giving again 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮_𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨 to
𝙨𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙠𝙮 to commit terrorism in other countries.

as such the bombing of the 𝙉𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢_𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮_𝙥𝙞𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨, under the sea, as
𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙤_𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚, Palestine, Yugoslavia and so on, was not enough with state
terrorism from the 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩. When are you going to start undrestanding
physics??

‘𝘽𝙖𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙘_𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙠_𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙒𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣_𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙨’_–_𝙈𝙤𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙬_𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨_𝙐𝙠𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙣_𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙤𝙛_𝘿𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙨𝙠
The US and its allies are pushing Kiev towards increasingly reckless
steps, Russia’s foreign ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/591027-donetsk-ukraine-west-weapons/

It's been ten years now of indiscriminate shelling of civilian population
centres by the Ukies, simple minded punishments for the innocent.

The West knows Putin is a bluffer.

naive thinking that those western shellings will stop with condemnations .
Israel has lots of condemnations but no suffering consequences . That US
and its allies is part of this war , the ukraine army is a us army , has
been clear from day one. Open question is ; How many shellings will Russia
pass before making real punishment.

On 1/21/2024 6:27 AM, Lou wrote:

> Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
> GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
> as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second
> length matches the ground second.

No, I did not. There is only one second, 9192631770 periods of the Cs
frequency on a local Cs clock.

> And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
> at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.

Again, no I did not. All Cs clocks tick at 9192631770 periods per
second. By definition.

> But then in complete contradiction you then say that all these Cs clocks
> aren’t beating at different frequencies or running at different speeds at
> different altitudes.

They are not. They tick at 9192631770 periods per second.

> And that they only magically appear to be running at
> different speeds.

Blueshift of signals (not the clocks themselves) are physics, not magic.

> I think you will find it hard to disprove my claim that the GPS atomic clock
> resonant frequency is beating slightly faster up there at around 9192631774.1
> beats per second due to the effects of gravity.

No, because BY DEFINITION they tick at 9192631770 periods per second.

> And needs to be corrected by an
> onboard divisor to make sure it’s second matches the earth clocks second.

No, the correction is to compensate for the blueshift of the signal to
earth so that the 10.23 MHz really is received at 10.23 MHz. That can
only happen if the signal is transmitted at 10.2299999954326 MHz at the
altitude of the GPS satellites.

Il giorno Sun Volney ha scritto:

>> And that Cs clocks run at different speeds at different altitudes due
>> to gravitational effects.
>
> Again, no I did not. All Cs clocks tick at 9192631770 periods per
> second. By d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.

that's 𝙖_𝙇𝙖𝙬_𝙤𝙛_𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, not definition, my friend. People may come to
think you can change the duration of those periods.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀_‘𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺’_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃'𝘀_𝗺𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗿
Fake Ukraine leaves “little space” for the gay actor Vladimir Zelensky’s
critics, Vitaly Klitschko has claimed
https://r%74.com/russia/591048-ukraine-authoritarianism-kiev-mayor-klitschko/

This guy is pretty sharp. ...for a heavy weight boxer.

???? Moving towards????

"Ukraine moving towards ‘authoritarianism’" Nazis have a tendency to do
that

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

How about stopping mumbling and answering the question?

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 20:41:02 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/21/2024 6:27 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> > Typical Blarney from Volney. You spend the entire post admitting that the
> > GPS clock divisor is set to measure more beats per second (9192631774.1
> > as opposed to 9192631770 on ground) when up in orbit to make its second
> > length matches the ground second.
> No, I did not. There is only one second, 9192631770 periods of the Cs

Even that idiot Roberts sometimes is admits there is another.
Actually, your idiocy is only applicable in the liturgy of the Holy
Church of The Shit.

> frequency on a local Cs clock.
> > And that Cs clocks run at different speeds
> > at different altitudes due to gravitational effects.
> Again, no I did not. All Cs clocks tick at 9192631770 periods per
> second. By definition.

Take your wannabe definition and put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs. Your
pathetic try of enforcing your absurd newspeak
had never any chance to succeed and didn't succeed.

> They are not. They tick at 9192631770 periods per second.

Anyone can check GPS, no they don't. Practice - that's where
insane lies of The Shit end.

> No, because BY DEFINITION they tick at 9192631770 periods per second.

See, stupid Mike. Sharks won't eat grass BY DEFINITION, even
if some idiots like you define them as grass-eaters.

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

How long do you got?

Let's see, do you at least have that 0, 1, infinity form a relation making a natural unit?