On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
<...>
> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
"escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
unknown massless entities.
But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
that's what cranks usually do.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
> unknown massless entities.
>
> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
>
> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
> that's what cranks usually do.
It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined?
> > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us
> > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain.
> > > >>>>>>> Sure:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads.
> > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS,
> > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all.
> > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use:
> > > >>>> Oppositely - you do.
> > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad.
> > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS.
> > >
> > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read"
> > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time
> > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation
> > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality.
> > >
> > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference.. That is really what they already do.
> > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was
> > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference..
> > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.
> > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different
> > number of MHz.
> > >
> > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the
> > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0
> > > offset) ?
> > >
> > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency,
> > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity
> > > predicts?
> That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.

So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
10.23 MHz

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined?
> > > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us
> > > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain.
> > > > >>>>>>> Sure:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads.
> > > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS,
> > > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all.
> > > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use:
> > > > >>>> Oppositely - you do.
> > > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad.
> > > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS.
> > > >
> > > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read"
> > > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time
> > > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation
> > > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality.
> > > >
> > > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do.
> > > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was
> > > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference.
> > > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.
> > > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different
> > > number of MHz.
> > > >
> > > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the
> > > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0
> > > > offset) ?
> > > >
> > > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency,
> > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity
> > > > predicts?
> > That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> 10.23 MHz
No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.

El domingo, 6 de agosto de 2023 a las 18:28:54 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

> > > That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> > So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> > 10.23 MHz
> No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.

Priceless ignorance!!!!

On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
>> unknown massless entities.
>>
>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
>>
>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
>> that's what cranks usually do.
> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.
You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is
instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:28:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined?
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us
> > > > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain.
> > > > > >>>>>>> Sure:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads.
> > > > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS,
> > > > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all.
> > > > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use:
> > > > > >>>> Oppositely - you do.
> > > > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad.
> > > > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read"
> > > > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time
> > > > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation
> > > > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do.
> > > > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was
> > > > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference.
> > > > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.
> > > > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different
> > > > number of MHz.
> > > > >
> > > > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the
> > > > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0
> > > > > offset) ?
> > > > >
> > > > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency,
> > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity
> > > > > predicts?
> > > That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> > So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> > 10.23 MHz
> No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.

Sorry, I don't understand.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
> >> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
> >> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
> >> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
> >> unknown massless entities.
> >>
> >> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
> >>
> >> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
> >> that's what cranks usually do.
> > It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.
> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is
> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?
The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very exponential multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital dynamics so much Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine tune for a .43" difference.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 4:21:42 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:28:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Sure:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS,
> > > > > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all.
> > > > > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use:
> > > > > > >>>> Oppositely - you do.
> > > > > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad.
> > > > > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read"
> > > > > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time
> > > > > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation
> > > > > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do.
> > > > > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was
> > > > > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference.
> > > > > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.
> > > > > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different
> > > > > number of MHz.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the
> > > > > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0
> > > > > > offset) ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency,
> > > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity
> > > > > > predicts?
> > > > That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> > > So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> > > 10.23 MHz
> > No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.
> Sorry, I don't understand.
Here's a reference I'm looking at now that seems helpful: "Galileo payload 10.23 MHZ master clock generation with a clock monitoring and control unit (CMCU)"

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 4:21:42 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 6:28:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Sure:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS,
> > > > > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all.
> > > > > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use:
> > > > > > >>>> Oppositely - you do.
> > > > > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad.
> > > > > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read"
> > > > > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time
> > > > > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation
> > > > > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do.
> > > > > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was
> > > > > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference.
> > > > > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.
> > > > > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different
> > > > > number of MHz.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the
> > > > > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0
> > > > > > offset) ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency,
> > > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity
> > > > > > predicts?
> > > > That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> > > So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> > > 10.23 MHz
> > No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.
> Sorry, I don't understand.
Vis: "As shown in figure 1 the payload of the Galileo navigation
satellite consists of a clock ensemble with two Passive HMasers (PHM) and two Rubidium Atomic Frequency Sources
(RAFS) that provide the time reference for the generation of
the navigation signal. The atomic reference is selected and
converted to the Master Timing Reference of 10.23 MHz by
the Clock Monitoring and Control Unit (CMCU). The MTR
provides the reference for the Frequency Generation and Upconversion Unit (FGUU) to generate the master clock for the
Navigation Signal Generation Unit (NSGU) and up-convert
the navigation signals to their transmission frequencies. These
signals pass the power amplifiers and are transmitted
afterwards."

On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was

1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space?
Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the

Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has
nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s
instantaneous. Black

holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't
escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make
predictions

because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different
rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently
accountable

for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are
very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is
laudable. You

could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a
diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science.
Essen was correct

that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.

>>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
>>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
>>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
>>>> unknown massless entities.
>>>>
>>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
>>>>
>>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
>>>> that's what cranks usually do.

>>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.

>> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is
>> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?

> The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's

perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have
calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very
exponential

multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it
would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital
dynamics so much

Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine
tune for a .43" difference.

So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is
instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of
gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize
that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of
this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The
Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate
discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in.

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <...>
> >>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was
>
> 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space?
> Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the
>
> Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has
> nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s
> instantaneous. Black
>
> holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't
> escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make
> predictions
>
> because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different
> rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently
> accountable
>
> for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are
> very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is
> laudable. You
>
> could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a
> diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science.
> Essen was correct
>
> that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
>
> >>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
> >>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
> >>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
> >>>> unknown massless entities.
> >>>>
> >>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
> >>>> that's what cranks usually do.
>
> >>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.
>
> >> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is
> >> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?
>
> > The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's
>
> perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have
> calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very
> exponential
>
> multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it
> would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital
> dynamics so much
>
> Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine
> tune for a .43" difference.
> So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is
> instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of
> gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize
> that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of
> this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The
> Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate
> discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in.
You might try getting some fresh air and exercise to clear your head.

On 8/6/2023 7:20 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was
>>
>> 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space?
>> Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the
>>
>> Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has
>> nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s
>> instantaneous. Black
>>
>> holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't
>> escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make
>> predictions
>>
>> because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different
>> rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently
>> accountable
>>
>> for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are
>> very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is
>> laudable. You
>>
>> could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a
>> diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science.
>> Essen was correct
>>
>> that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
>>
>>>>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity
>>>>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since
>>>>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with
>>>>>> unknown massless entities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then
>>>>>> that's what cranks usually do.
>>
>>>>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.
>>
>>>> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is
>>>> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?
>>
>>> The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's
>>
>> perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have
>> calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very
>> exponential
>>
>> multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it
>> would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital
>> dynamics so much
>>
>> Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine
>> tune for a .43" difference.
>> So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is
>> instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of
>> gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize
>> that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of
>> this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The
>> Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate
>> discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in.

> You might try getting some fresh air and exercise to clear your head.

Thank you. I accept your "end of unresolved discussion" marker.

On 8/6/2023 12:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 05:24:32 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
>> How can you use empirical data from this mission to set the GR carrier
>> frequency to 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch?
>
> Why "before", stupid Mike?

Because they had two possible divisors, which were fixed before launch
(technology limitations). They could not select any frequency after
launch, only one of the fixed preselected ones.

Without time travel, there was no way to use empirical data to determine
one of the frequencies. Their only choices were the predicted divisors
from Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

On 8/6/2023 2:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/5/2023 7:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> I hope you have the intelligence to understand that Essen is not a creationist because he published in a Creationist journal or that he feels vindicated by it unlike your comrade.

>> It sounds like HE was desperate as well, to lower himself to publish in
>> a creationist "journal" like that.

> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978.

NAVSTAR NTS-2 was essentially a demonstration satellite for the GPS
project. It was launched on June 23, 1977 and contained the first two Cs
clocks in space. The 1978 satellites were the first satellites in the
GPS constellation.

> Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch?

The NTS-2 of 1977 was the first Cs clock in space. Due to technical
limitations of the time (1977) there wasn't a way to include a
programmable clock, only ones with a fixed predetermined divisor.

There was no reason for a programmable clock anyway, since they already
knew that the only possible values were Newton Mode and Einstein Mode
divisors, and a programmable switch to select between them.

> The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous.

Recent experiments (LIGO) shows that gravity has a speed of c.

> Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed.

Yet we can measure the electric charge of black holes, despite the speed
of electromagnetic radiation being c.

I don't know the physics as to why gravity and electric charge can
"escape" but not light/photons.

> Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value.

Except relativity doesn't make illogical predictions. Every prediction
it makes has exact physics and mathematics behind it.

> The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for.

Any "instrumental error" would ruin the whole GPS concept. It requires
exact precision to the point where the ~500 parts per trillion time
dilation due to GR must be accounted for, else it would not work.

> Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein.

And same goes for scientists.

> Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism.

Skepticism is fine but it's not the same as outright rejection just
because you don't like it (or have mental health issues centered on it,
as many here demonstrate).

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 03:22:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 12:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 05:24:32 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >
> >> How can you use empirical data from this mission to set the GR carrier
> >> frequency to 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch?
> >
> > Why "before", stupid Mike?
>
> Because they had two possible divisors,

2, and 100000 more.
Doesn't really matter, of course, The Shit wasn't even consistent
and failed at much bolder things.

markus...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > In 1977 two cesium atomic clocks were sent into orbit with Navigation
>> > Satellite 2 before the GPS used atomic clocks in 1978.
>>
>> so true indeed. In 1977 america was still a country. A man 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻
>> 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲,
>> to buy a house, a car, and a wife taking care of the children. Now the
>> LGBTQ+ are taking care of that. Whereas the americans are so stupid not
>> caring anymore. They say LGBTQ+ is good! They also take 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
>> 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲 from the regime, with a smile on their face. That is good for
>> the environment.
> LGBT isn't to blame for the faults of capitalism.

sure indeed. He already said you are so fucking stupid. LGBTQ+ is good for
you, stinking braindead wankers. Have shame.

Volney wrote:

>>> How can you use empirical data from this mission to set the GR carrier
>>> frequency to 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch?
>>
>> Why "before", stupid Mike?
>
> Because they had two possible divisors, which were fixed before launch
> (technology limitations). They could not select any frequency after
> launch, only one of the fixed preselected ones.

what a stupid argument, give me a break. You can't be this stupid. Those
days 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻. You are so fucking stupid.

𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻-𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿_𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀_19_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗮_𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗻𝘆.
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/W1abkmYB4DYp/

The Moscow City Court sentenced 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻-𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁, Alexei
Navalny to 19 years in a high security penal colony, as well as a fine of
850,000 rubles on the case 𝗼𝗳_𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮𝗻_𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and a number of
other charges, following a closed hearing held in penal colony No. 6 in
the Vladimir region on Friday.

On 8/6/2023 6:30 PM, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 6 de agosto de 2023 a las 18:28:54 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>
>>>> That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
>>> So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
>>> 10.23 MHz
>> No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.
>
> Priceless ignorance!!!!

This is a new, unexplored dimension of wrongness, where Ken Seto is
actually correct but someone tries to correct Ken, but becomes even more
wrong than Ken himself.

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 17:53:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 6:30 PM, Paparios wrote:
> > El domingo, 6 de agosto de 2023 a las 18:28:54 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
> >> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> >>>> That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
> >>> So they have to send out 10.2299999954326 MHz, in order for the receiver to receiver
> >>> 10.23 MHz
> >> No, that's just a frequency within the clock itself.
> >
> > Priceless ignorance!!!!
>
> This is a new, unexplored dimension of wrongness, where Ken Seto is

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.