On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:27:41 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> Snip rest of volney nonsense
> >
> > > Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
> > > following question...
> > > What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
> >
> > c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
> > right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
> > (c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
> > which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.
> Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
> any result I get is automatically incorrect. Even though the result it is exactly
> the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
> But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas.
> So answer the question.
> Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
> Cant answer again?
> According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
> incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.

This seems one of the better threads sci.physics.relativity has seen in a long time.

It's appreciated the technical deftness and accuracy conveyed.

I sort of frame light's behavior as, "massless or infinitesimal",
about doubling spaces, of the individua of continua, and as with
regards also to sort of, "inner lensing", and "outer lensing".

(Given that mathematical models their improvements
automatically equip physical models.)

With a sort of tetrad of quantities, mass, charge, light's speed,
and proton's lifetime, is how I am looking at GR and QM with fall gravity.
(... And real space-contraction, real wave-collapse, real supersymmetry, .....)

Of course clocks in orbit on station in space-contraction would make for
usual sorts coordinated communication advising each other corrections.

Dead reckoning, ....

....

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 10:12:57 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:27:41 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > Snip rest of volney nonsense
> > >
> > > > Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
> > > > following question...
> > > > What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
> > >
> > > c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
> > > right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
> > > (c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
> > > which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.
> > Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
> > any result I get is automatically incorrect. Even though the result it is exactly
> > the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
> > But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas.
> > So answer the question.
> > Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
> > Cant answer again?
> > According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
> > incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.
>
> This seems one of the better threads sci.physics.relativity has seen in a long time.
>
> It's appreciated the technical deftness and accuracy conveyed.
>
> I sort of frame light's behavior as, "massless or infinitesimal",
> about doubling spaces, of the individua of continua, and as with
> regards also to sort of, "inner lensing", and "outer lensing".
>
> (Given that mathematical models their improvements
> automatically equip physical models.)
>
> With a sort of tetrad of quantities, mass, charge, light's speed,
> and proton's lifetime, is how I am looking at GR and QM with fall gravity..
> (... And real space-contraction, real wave-collapse, real supersymmetry, .....)
>
> Of course clocks in orbit on station in space-contraction would make for
> usual sorts coordinated communication advising each other corrections.
>
> Dead reckoning, ....
>
>
> ...

After all, light is always fleeting and flux in all directions as sort of
rotationally, if at all, mass/energy equivalent, about the geodesy,
and light's behavior about the geodesy or bodies, while for example
the sort of "ultramundane corpuscles" of a flux of gravity, would be
kind of simpler in the sense of a plain straight gradient, with the idea
that according to the Solar System, gravity always points at the source,
not the image, so, it's no slower, c_g than c.

Rotating frames are kind of independent, or "the teacup on the train".

Maybe you should take an Internet poll and see how the spam-farms vote.
Then censor that from the samples.

Den 07.01.2024 05:27, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:24:23 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
>>>
>>> Yes Paul. I’ve read your rants already. And read the spec which says there is a
>>> carrier etc offset to 10.22999 . A supposed offset which incidentally can also
>>> be explained just as well by a classical non relativistic model using GM/r ÷ f
>>
>> There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
>> the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.

> Then, there was no Newtonian prediction for the GPS clock. How does gravity affect the rate of an atomic clock? If gravity affects it, then Newtonian would have an exlanation. How does the relativistic explanation compare?

Read "the relativistic explanation" below:

>>
>> An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
>>
>> The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
>> as the rate of a clock at infinity.
>>
>> The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
>> relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
>>
>> dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
>>
>> GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
>> make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
>>
>> If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
>>
>> dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
>>
>> This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
>> Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
>> the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
>>
>> We consult Ashby:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
>> see equation (18) page 11.
>>
>> dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
>>
>> dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
>>
>> Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
>>
>> For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
>> p = 43082.04525 s
>> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
>> c = 299792458 m/s
>> r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m
>>
>> Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
>>
>> This means that the clock will run fast relative
>> to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
>> corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
>>
>> In the GPS specification the correction is set to
>> Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
>>
>> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
>>> Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
>>> 10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
>>> 10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?

>> Of course that's what is done.
>>
>> The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
>> f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
>> It is not 'converted' from anything else.
>>
>> The frequencies of the carriers are derived from f₀:
>> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz
>> L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6000005480864 Mhz
>> as measured by a local SI-clock.
>>
>> Measured by local UTC-clocks the frequencies are:
>> f₀ = 10.23 MHz,
>> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.42 MHz and L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6 MHz.
>>
>> Chew on that! :-D
>>
>> SI-clock = a clock with time unit seconds as defined by SI.
>> UTC-clock = a clock showing UTC
>>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 06.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen >>> I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change
from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined
frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.

>> A very peculiar question.
>>
>> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
>> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
>>
>> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
>> hadn't done what it did! :-D
>>

> It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic?

There is no "Newtonian mode".

There is only a clock which is counting seconds
according to the SI definition. ( an "SI-clock")

And a clock which is modified by a frequency synthesizer
to run slow by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10) compared to an "SI-clock".

> Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to
Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser
beams in the cesium gas.

Are you claiming that according to Newton atomic clocks on Earth
don't work?

I don't think Newton has much to say about atomic clocks. :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 15:41:09 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen >>> I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change
> from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined
> frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
>
> >> A very peculiar question.
> >>
> >> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> >> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
> >>
> >> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> >> hadn't done what it did! :-D
> >>
> > It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic?
> There is no "Newtonian mode".
>
> There is only a clock which is counting seconds
> according to the SI definition. ( an "SI-clock")

There is no "SI clock", there is only a fanatic idiot
lying and enchanting the reality.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 07.01.2024 05:27, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:24:23 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
> >>>
> >>> Yes Paul. I’ve read your rants already. And read the spec which says there is a
> >>> carrier etc offset to 10.22999 . A supposed offset which incidentally can also
> >>> be explained just as well by a classical non relativistic model using GM/r ÷ f
> >>
> >> There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
> >> the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.
>
> > Then, there was no Newtonian prediction for the GPS clock. How does gravity affect the rate of an atomic clock? If gravity affects it, then Newtonian would have an exlanation. How does the relativistic explanation compare?
> Read "the relativistic explanation" below:
> >>
> >> An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
> >>
> >> The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
> >> as the rate of a clock at infinity.
> >>
> >> The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
> >> relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
> >>
> >> dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
> >>
> >> GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
> >> make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
> >>
> >> If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
> >>
> >> dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
> >>
> >> This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
> >> Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
> >> the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
> >>
> >> We consult Ashby:
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
> >> see equation (18) page 11.
> >>
> >> dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
> >>
> >> dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
> >>
> >> Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
> >>
> >> For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
> >> p = 43082.04525 s
> >> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> >> c = 299792458 m/s
> >> r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m
> >>
> >> Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
> >>
> >> This means that the clock will run fast relative
> >> to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
> >> corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
> >>
> >> In the GPS specification the correction is set to
> >> Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
> >>
> >> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
> >>> Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
> >>> 10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
> >>> 10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?
>
> >> Of course that's what is done.
> >>
> >> The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
> >> f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
> >> It is not 'converted' from anything else.
> >>
> >> The frequencies of the carriers are derived from f₀:
> >> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz
> >> L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6000005480864 Mhz
> >> as measured by a local SI-clock.
> >>
> >> Measured by local UTC-clocks the frequencies are:
> >> f₀ = 10.23 MHz,
> >> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.42 MHz and L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6 MHz.
> >>
> >> Chew on that! :-D
> >>
> >> SI-clock = a clock with time unit seconds as defined by SI.
> >> UTC-clock = a clock showing UTC
> >>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
How very ignorant. The Schwartzschild metric is about the fiction of curved space, which is the reification fallacy; therefore, it explains nothing. The Schwarzschild Metric tells us the amount of time dilation. Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:41:09 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen >>> I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change
> from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined
> frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
>
> >> A very peculiar question.
> >>
> >> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> >> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
> >>
> >> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> >> hadn't done what it did! :-D
> >>
> > It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic?
> There is no "Newtonian mode".
>
> There is only a clock which is counting seconds
> according to the SI definition. ( an "SI-clock")
>
> And a clock which is modified by a frequency synthesizer
> to run slow by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10) compared to an "SI-clock".
> > Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to
> Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser
> beams in the cesium gas.
> Are you claiming that according to Newton atomic clocks on Earth
> don't work?
>
> I don't think Newton has much to say about atomic clocks. :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
Poor Paul. Newton had much to say about how much light is deflected in eclipses. Any effect of gravity on atomic clocks would be Newtonian. Relativity explains nothing about it.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.

And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

Please be specific and show all your work.

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:56:28 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

Al, poor fanatic trash, stop fucking. Getting evidence
is only making you spitting more fiercely.
And anyone can check GPS, the time (as defined
by your idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
error.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>
> Please be specific and show all your work.
You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
Your evidence that abstractions are physical?

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>
> Please be specific and show all your work.
There is no evidence time dilates. For time to dilate, every rate of change would have to change in concert without exception, or it would not be time itself but only certain rates of change varying. The rates of change of different clocks change differently in response to different gravity so it is not time itself that is dilating. Some clocks move slower in lower gravity while some move faster.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 10:25:39 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 10:12:57 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:27:41 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > Snip rest of volney nonsense
> > > >
> > > > > Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
> > > > > following question...
> > > > > What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
> > > >
> > > > c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
> > > > right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
> > > > (c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
> > > > which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.
> > > Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
> > > any result I get is automatically incorrect. Even though the result it is exactly
> > > the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
> > > But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas.
> > > So answer the question.
> > > Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
> > > Cant answer again?
> > > According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
> > > incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.
> >
> > This seems one of the better threads sci.physics.relativity has seen in a long time.
> >
> > It's appreciated the technical deftness and accuracy conveyed.
> >
> > I sort of frame light's behavior as, "massless or infinitesimal",
> > about doubling spaces, of the individua of continua, and as with
> > regards also to sort of, "inner lensing", and "outer lensing".
> >
> > (Given that mathematical models their improvements
> > automatically equip physical models.)
> >
> > With a sort of tetrad of quantities, mass, charge, light's speed,
> > and proton's lifetime, is how I am looking at GR and QM with fall gravity.
> > (... And real space-contraction, real wave-collapse, real supersymmetry, ....)
> >
> > Of course clocks in orbit on station in space-contraction would make for
> > usual sorts coordinated communication advising each other corrections.
> >
> > Dead reckoning, ....
> >
> >
> > ...
> After all, light is always fleeting and flux in all directions as sort of
> rotationally, if at all, mass/energy equivalent, about the geodesy,
> and light's behavior about the geodesy or bodies, while for example
> the sort of "ultramundane corpuscles" of a flux of gravity, would be
> kind of simpler in the sense of a plain straight gradient, with the idea
> that according to the Solar System, gravity always points at the source,
> not the image, so, it's no slower, c_g than c.
>
> Rotating frames are kind of independent, or "the teacup on the train".
>
> Maybe you should take an Internet poll and see how the spam-farms vote.
> Then censor that from the samples.

"Teacup on the train": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpWi_nRBmWY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3&index=4

....

Moment and Motion: wave descriptions and derivations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBs8nc7uaAM

Sources, waves in open and closed physics, waves and radiation, viscoelastic solids,
definitions in dynamics, the constitutive, language of science, resonance, dynamics
in lower orders, fixed and free, Russell and Norvig, wave models, wash flow, series
in sources, homogeneous and inhomogeneous plane waves, Fourier-style derivations,
Gaussian-Eulerian derivations, harmonics, quantities and derivations, the qualitative
after derivations, descriptive differential dynamics, waves and flow, refraction in
acoustic waves, wave functions, near-field and far-field, analysis situs, inner and outer
and outer and inner superposition.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>
> Please be specific and show all your work.
According to relativity, the effects of gravity on light are twice Newtonian. Then, if the change in atomic clock rates is relativistic, then they should be twice Newtonian, yet Paul says there is no Newtonian. Paul is not being reasonable about this. Also, notice that in saying there is no Newtonian explanation for the rates of atomic clocks in space, he is admitting there was not a Newtonian setting of the synthesizer in the first GPS cesium clock. With the eclipse there was a Newtonian prediction yet they neglected that with atomic clocks.

On 1/5/2024 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
>> isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
>> And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
>> or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
>>
>> If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
>> to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
>> (It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
>>
>> If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
>> the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
>>
>> If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
>> is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
>>
>> So to answer your questions:
>>> 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
>> Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
>> accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
>>
>> Which confirms my statement:
>> "Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
>> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
>> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document."
>>> 2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
>> A very peculiar question.
>>
>> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
>> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
>>
>> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
>> hadn't done what it did! :-D
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

> Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.

You are very confused (again). "Newtonian mode" simply means Newton's
concept of time, which is the same everywhere in the universe. There is
no time dilation in Newton's view of the universe nor could there be,
clocks everywhere tick in synch. That includes a GPS satellite, it would
transmit at 10.23 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz, since the transmitter
frequency is just another clock. So "Newtonian mode" for the first NTS-2
satellite simply means not to enable any time offset.

Also "half relativistic" applies to the gravitational deflection of
light ONLY. The "Newtonian mode" for clock offset obviously cannot be
"half relativistic" because it is zero and "relativistic" is nonzero.
And time dilation is not light bending by gravity, either.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
> >> isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
> >> And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
> >> or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
> >> to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
> >> (It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
> >> the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
> >>
> >> If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
> >> is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> So to answer your questions:
> >>> 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
> >> Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
> >> accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> Which confirms my statement:
> >> "Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> >> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> >> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document."
> >>> 2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
> >> A very peculiar question.
> >>
> >> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> >> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
> >>
> >> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> >> hadn't done what it did! :-D
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
>
> > Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.
> You are very confused (again). "Newtonian mode" simply means Newton's
> concept of time, which is the same everywhere in the universe. There is
> no time dilation in Newton's view of the universe nor could there be,
> clocks everywhere tick in synch. That includes a GPS satellite, it would
> transmit at 10.23 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz, since the transmitter
> frequency is just another clock. So "Newtonian mode" for the first NTS-2
> satellite simply means not to enable any time offset.
>
> Also "half relativistic" applies to the gravitational deflection of
> light ONLY. The "Newtonian mode" for clock offset obviously cannot be
> "half relativistic" because it is zero and "relativistic" is nonzero.
> And time dilation is not light bending by gravity, either.
Thank you for explaining what Newtonian mode is. Not having heard that, I thought the reasonable supposition was that an honest comparison would be made between the Newtonian gravitational effect on atomic clocks and the relativistic. Most of the effect on the atomic clocks is gravitational. In fact, all of it is since there is no time dilation. That is just read into the empirical data.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
>> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>>
>> Please be specific and show all your work.

> You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.

So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!

> Your evidence that abstractions are physical?

I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.

Evidence rules, got any?

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 22:42:46 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
> >> isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
> >> And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
> >> or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
> >> to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
> >> (It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
> >> the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
> >>
> >> If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
> >> is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> So to answer your questions:
> >>> 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
> >> Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
> >> accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> Which confirms my statement:
> >> "Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> >> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> >> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document."
> >>> 2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
> >> A very peculiar question.
> >>
> >> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> >> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
> >>
> >> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> >> hadn't done what it did! :-D
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
>
> > Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.
> You are very confused (again). "Newtonian mode" simply means Newton's
> concept of time, which is the same everywhere in the universe. There is
> no time dilation in Newton's view of the universe nor could there be,
> clocks everywhere tick in synch.

Stupid Mike, do you think Newton was as delusional as yourself?
Clocks in Newtonian physics only tick at sync if they're adjusted
to, like it was done in GPS, against your ISO idiocy and your
ideological madness.

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
> >>
> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
>
> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!
> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?
> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
>
> Evidence rules, got any?

Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
error.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
>> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
>> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>> >>
>> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
>>
>> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
>> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!
>> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?
>> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
>>
>> Evidence rules, got any?

> Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
> spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
> can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
> idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
> is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
> error.

LOL, Woz, you would not recognize evidence if it bit you on your pecker. Everyone knows this!

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
> >> isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
> >> And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
> >> or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
> >> to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
> >> (It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
> >>
> >> If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
> >> the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
> >>
> >> If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
> >> is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> So to answer your questions:
> >>> 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
> >> Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
> >> accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
> >>
> >> Which confirms my statement:
> >> "Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> >> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> >> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document."
> >>> 2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.
> >> A very peculiar question.
> >>
> >> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> >> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
> >>
> >> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> >> hadn't done what it did! :-D
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
>
> > Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.
> You are very confused (again). "Newtonian mode" simply means Newton's
> concept of time, which is the same everywhere in the universe. There is
> no time dilation in Newton's view of the universe nor could there be,
> clocks everywhere tick in synch. That includes a GPS satellite, it would
> transmit at 10.23 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz, since the transmitter
> frequency is just another clock. So "Newtonian mode" for the first NTS-2
> satellite simply means not to enable any time offset.
>
> Also "half relativistic" applies to the gravitational deflection of
> light ONLY. The "Newtonian mode" for clock offset obviously cannot be
> "half relativistic" because it is zero and "relativistic" is nonzero.
> And time dilation is not light bending by gravity, either.
Ergo, the effect of gravity on the atomic clock is not time dilation (or contraction). Time dilation is caused by high speeds, so relativists are confused.

Also, "The negative sign in this result means that the standard clock in orbit is beating too fast, primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted. In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
[︀1 − 4.4647 × 10−10]︀ × 10.23 MHz = 10.229 999 995 43 MHz. (36)" - "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" -Neil Ashby; So I am correct about that. It has nothing to do with the effects during transmission.

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 2:46:58 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> >> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> >> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
> >>
> >> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
> >> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!
> >> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?
> >> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
> >>
> >> Evidence rules, got any?
>
> > Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
> > spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
> > can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
> > idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
> > is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
> > error.
> LOL, Woz, you would not recognize evidence if it bit you on your pecker. Everyone knows this!
"Everyone knows" is the fallacy of appeal to the crowd or ad populum.

I have made no claim that requires evidence. I have made criticisms of the logic that shows relativity makes no valid predictions. How could a professor be ignorant of logic?

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 2:46:58 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
>> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
>> >> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
>> >> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
>> >>
>> >> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.

>> >> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!

>> >> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?

>> >> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
>> >>
>> >> Evidence rules, got any?
>>
>> > Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
>> > spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
>> > can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
>> > idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
>> > is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
>> > error.

>> LOL, Woz, you would not recognize evidence if it bit you on your pecker. Everyone knows this!

> "Everyone knows" is the fallacy of appeal to the crowd or ad populum.

So, Larry, do you agree with what Woz has to say? If so, you would likely be the only one here who does! The man knows virtually no physics, just like you! Birds of a feather, no doubt!

> I have made no claim that requires evidence.

Well, yes you have! In this very thread you have said "Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics." That is a claim that you cannot possibly support with evidence. Do you think that folks should just take your word for it? There is overwhelming evidence that you are full of crap and it can easily be found with a simple Google search. Do you think that the educated people here are stupid? You are just making it up as you go along, AND EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT (except for Woz, who is as clueless as you are)!

I have made criticisms of the logic that shows relativity makes no valid predictions. How could a professor be ignorant of logic?

Larry, you could not possibly pass a class in logic, the very concept of it is way beyond your capabilities.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Thank you for explaining what Newtonian mode is. Not having heard that, I thought the reasonable supposition was that an honest comparison would be made between the Newtonian gravitational effect on atomic clocks and the relativistic. Most of the effect on the atomic clocks is gravitational.

The orbiting atomic clocks are in freefall, so there is NO gravitational
force on them.

> In fact, all of it is since there is no time dilation.

Assertion without evidence. In contrast, many experiments, most famously
the cosmic muon effect, show you to be completely wrong.

> That is just read into the empirical data.

And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 6:58:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/7/2024 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Thank you for explaining what Newtonian mode is. Not having heard that, I thought the reasonable supposition was that an honest comparison would be made between the Newtonian gravitational effect on atomic clocks and the relativistic. Most of the effect on the atomic clocks is gravitational.
> The orbiting atomic clocks are in freefall, so there is NO gravitational
> force on them.
> > In fact, all of it is since there is no time dilation.
> Assertion without evidence. In contrast, many experiments, most famously
> the cosmic muon effect, show you to be completely wrong.
> > That is just read into the empirical data.
> And again, how could there be any empirical data if NTS-2 was the first
> satellite to fly with Cs clocks, and the time dilation offset was
> programmed into it before launch? Are you really stooopid or something?

So you're saying that they live entirely in Earth's rotating frame?

No other planets get any say at all?

How exactly does space-time straighten itself back out?

That everything orbits is so, and that everything is in free fall is so,
static things.

When we talk about relativity it includes GR then SR and also
includes fields theories of the day, as whatever is in Space-Time,
in "space", according to "The time". The Earth's ephemeris is called
Post-Parameterized Newtonian a.k.a. whatever works. It is well
known these days that GR is a good classical approximation of Newtonian,
and, vice-versa. It is well known that MOND looks really good in less,
of a coat of fudge. So, fudge-coating coat-tailing wall-paperists,
maybe should stick to their domains where SR keeps things much
simplified so they don't get confused, and the NSF should get all shook up.

....

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:46:58 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 23:11:14 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> >> >> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Time dilation is a fiction. It is not physics.
> >> >> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please be specific and show all your work.
> >>
> >> > You could start by understanding what the reification fallacy is, and you would know curved space is an elementary fallacy and is stupid.
> >> So, you don't have any evidence to support your vapid claims? Got it!
> >> > Your evidence that abstractions are physical?
> >> I have made no claim that requires supporting evidence, but *you* have! Present your evidence or stop making such claims. You don't know what you don't know.
> >>
> >> Evidence rules, got any?
>
> > Come on, Al, the evidence is only making you
> > spitting more fiercely. Bersides, anyone
> > can check GPS, the time (as defined by your
> > idiot guru himself, "what clocks indicate")
> > is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
> > error.
> LOL, Woz, you would not recognize evidence if it bit you on your pecker. Everyone knows this!

Al, poor trash, you've got a direct proof that
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent. Spitting with Polish jokes is not
changing that, sorry.