NEUTRINO SPEED ANOMALY AND THE ABSOLUTE MOTION

[GSS]

Friends,
I have made a critical study of the CERN paper concerning the
neutrino time of flight anomaly.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2

I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments. Since the
postulates of Relativity rule out the possibility of absolute motion,
successful resolution of the neutrino speed anomaly will signal the
end of Relativity. In this regard I have submitted a paper titled,
"NEUTRINO SPEED ANOMALY AND THE ABSOLUTE MOTION" for publication in an
international journal of Physics. For the purpose of discussions, a
preprint copy of this paper is available here.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Neutrino_anomaly_WS.pdf?attredirects=0

An absolute reference frame may be defined as the one which is
stationary with respect to the center of mass of the Universe and in
which speed of propagation of light is an isotropic constant. Consider
a line segment AB of length D, moving in the absolute reference frame
at velocity U_ab along AB. It can be easily shown that a light pulse
propagating from A to B will take D.U_ab/c^2 longer time than D/c. A
light pulse propagating from B to A will take D.U_ab/c^2 shorter time
than D/c. As per the e-synchronization convention of SR, the clock
times for A and B are set in such a way that the propagation of a
light pulse takes just D/c time in both directions. Therefore, when
the clocks at A and B are e-synchronized, leading end clock (B) will
be offset by D.U_ab/c^2 behind the trailing end clock (A) to ensure
that the propagation of a light pulse will be *measured* to take just
D/c time in both directions.

The time offset between two e-synchronized clocks A and B can be
practically measured with a portable primary standard Cs atomic clock
of the type Symmetricom’s SA.45s CSAC (Chip Scale Atomic Clock)
http://www.symmetricom.com/products/quantum-atomic-oscillators/chip-scale-atomic-clock-csac/SA.45s-CSAC/

The measured time offset between two e-synchronized clocks will
practically represent the difference between the absolute
synchronization and e-synchronization of the clocks. Since this time
offset between e-synchronized clocks A and B is equal to D.U_ab/c^2,
its measured value will yield the absolute velocity component U_ab
along AB. This is an interesting result which implies that we can
detect (and measure) absolute motion just by measuring the time offset
between two e-synchronized clocks A and B, separated by known distance
D.

I have also shown in the subject paper that when two clocks A and B
are synchronized through a GPS satellite in common view mode, (after
accounting for atmospheric and hardware delays) their synchronization
is effectively equivalent to e-synchronization. A time offset between
the two GPS synchronized clocks gets created as a consequence of
Sagnac effect of absolute motion. Therefore, measurement of time
offset between two GPS synchronized clocks A and B can also yield the
absolute velocity component U_ab along AB and hence detect absolute
motion.

However, in the case of absolute synchronization between clocks A and
B, the time offset between them will be zero. When a GPS receiver
receives data signals from all satellites in view, to compute the
timing corrections through an averaging process, the resulting Sagnac
effect will get reduced and the corrected clock time will approach or
be nearer to the absolute synchronization with the GPS time. In the
process of averaging the correction data from all satellites in view,
the resulting clock synchronization is somewhere in-between e-
synchronization and the absolute synchronization and we may refer to
it as *partial e-synchronization*. Therefore, when two clocks A and B
are synchronized through *all* GPS satellites in common view, their
resulting synchronization will be partial e-synchronization. Hence the
time offsets between two partially e-synchronized clocks A and B will
be somewhere in-between zero and D.U_ab/c^2.

In the case of OPERA neutrino experiments, the precision timing system
at CERN and LNGS consists of two standard GPS receivers operating
since 1990 and augmented with PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers since
2008. All GPS receivers effectively operate in partially e-
synchronized modes. In 2006, the standard GPS receivers were
calibrated in close by operation and after correcting for various
hardware delays, the relative synchronization error between the two
clocks was found to be within 23 ns. When the same receivers were
checked for absolute synchronization in July 2007 with a portable Cs
clock, their synchronization mismatch was found to be about 424 ns.
This was the first measured time offset of the partially e-
synchronized clocks at CERN and LNGS. However, even after installing
two new PolaRx2e GPS receivers as additional systems at CERN and LNGS,
the OPERA event times are still being corrected for the
synchronization mismatch of the order of 240 ns, with diurnal
fluctuations of about 60 ns. Ideally speaking (for absolute
synchronization), the synchronization mismatch between high precision
GPS receivers at the two sites should have been near about zero or
within their calibrated accuracy limits.

In retrospect, if the old GPS receivers were completely replaced by
new PolaRx2e receivers in 2008 and these geodetic receivers were
operated in common view mode with only one GPS satellite at any given
time, the neutrino speed could not have been measured to be more than
c, the speed of light in vacuum. In this case the Sagnac effect of
absolute motion would have been cancelled by the synchronization
offsets associated with full e-synchronization of the two clocks. The
current neutrino time of flight anomaly has arisen due to the
effective partial e-synchronization of the clocks at the two sites.

Finally, the Sagnac effect of absolute motion may be practically
demonstrated through quantitative measurements of time offsets
induced by GPS synchronization of clocks in common view mode. For this
purpose, the PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers, along with Cs clocks,
can be delinked from the CERN and LNGS system networks and
independently set to synchronize with the GPS system time through a
common satellite in view. After the Cs clocks of the PolaRx2e
receivers are synchronized and locked to the GPS time at both ends of
the baseline, their mutual synchronization mismatch can be measured
with a portable precision atomic clock such as Symmetricom’s SA.45s
CSAC. The synchronization mismatch between GPS synchronized Cs clocks
at CERN and LNGS can be directly correlated with the component of
absolute velocity U_ab along the baseline AB (LNGS to CERN) through
the relation D.U_ab/c^2.

Detection of absolute motion through measurement of synchronization
mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will
therefore play the role of 21st century Michelson-Morley experiment
and will invalidate the second postulate of SR. Apart from doing this
simple experiment for measurement of synchronization mismatch between
the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN-LNGS setup, it can also be
easily replicated anywhere else on the globe.

G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

[Dono.]

On Jan 28, 8:38 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>      I have made a critical study

No one gives a shit about the crap you call "study", Gurcharn.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/28/12 1/28/12 10:38 AM, GSS wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
> essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has

> not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments.[... nonsense]

Already dead and buried. This effect _IS_ taken into account, and amounts to a
few nanoseconds. Moreover, it is THE WRONG SIGN.

If what you claim were true, the GPS would not work.


Tom Roberts

[xxein]

On Jan 28, 11:38 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>      I have made a critical study of the CERN paper concerning the

> neutrino time of flight anomaly.http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2

>
> I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
> essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
> not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments. Since the
> postulates of Relativity rule out the possibility of absolute motion,
> successful resolution of the neutrino speed anomaly will signal the
> end of Relativity. In this regard I have submitted a paper titled,
> "NEUTRINO SPEED ANOMALY AND THE ABSOLUTE MOTION" for publication in an
> international journal of Physics. For the purpose of discussions, a

> preprint copy of this paper is available here.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...

>
> An absolute reference frame may be defined as the one which is
> stationary with respect to the center of mass of the Universe and in
> which speed of propagation of light is an isotropic constant. Consider
> a line segment AB of length D, moving in the absolute reference frame
> at velocity U_ab along AB. It can be easily shown that a light pulse
> propagating from A to B will take D.U_ab/c^2 longer time than D/c. A
> light pulse propagating from B to A will take D.U_ab/c^2 shorter time
> than D/c. As per the e-synchronization convention of SR, the clock
> times for A and B are set in such a way that the propagation of a
> light pulse takes just D/c time in both directions. Therefore, when
> the clocks at A and B are e-synchronized, leading end clock (B) will
> be offset by D.U_ab/c^2 behind the trailing end clock (A) to ensure
> that the propagation of a light pulse will be *measured* to take just
> D/c time in both directions.
>
> The time offset between two e-synchronized clocks A and B can be
> practically measured with a portable primary standard Cs atomic clock

> of the type Symmetricom’s SA.45s CSAC (Chip Scale Atomic Clock)http://www.symmetricom.com/products/quantum-atomic-oscillators/chip-s...

xxein: No mention of gravity and gravitational time dilation? I
guess you twirl GPS satellites on a string, huh?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 28, 8:38 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>      I have made a critical study of the CERN paper concerning the

> neutrino time of flight anomaly.http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2

>
> I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
> essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
> not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments. Since the
> postulates of Relativity rule out the possibility of absolute motion,
> successful resolution of the neutrino speed anomaly will signal the
> end of Relativity. In this regard I have submitted a paper titled,
> "NEUTRINO SPEED ANOMALY AND THE ABSOLUTE MOTION" for publication in an
> international journal of Physics. For the purpose of discussions, a

> preprint copy of this paper is available here.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...

>
> An absolute reference frame may be defined as the one which is
> stationary with respect to the center of mass of the Universe and in
> which speed of propagation of light is an isotropic constant. Consider
> a line segment AB of length D, moving in the absolute reference frame
> at velocity U_ab along AB. It can be easily shown that a light pulse
> propagating from A to B will take D.U_ab/c^2 longer time than D/c. A
> light pulse propagating from B to A will take D.U_ab/c^2 shorter time
> than D/c. As per the e-synchronization convention of SR, the clock
> times for A and B are set in such a way that the propagation of a
> light pulse takes just D/c time in both directions. Therefore, when
> the clocks at A and B are e-synchronized, leading end clock (B) will
> be offset by D.U_ab/c^2 behind the trailing end clock (A) to ensure
> that the propagation of a light pulse will be *measured* to take just
> D/c time in both directions.
>
> The time offset between two e-synchronized clocks A and B can be
> practically measured with a portable primary standard Cs atomic clock

> of the type Symmetricom’s SA.45s CSAC (Chip Scale Atomic Clock)http://www.symmetricom.com/products/quantum-atomic-oscillators/chip-s...

The neutrino never accelerated. That means it can be fastest matter.
It is in infinitely slow time with a Gamma of inverse infinity.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 28, 9:04 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Sorry...
Neutrino is at Gamma infinity where time is inverse.
The inverse of infinity is always the infinitely small.
For neutrino time it is slowest time flow.


> Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Y.Porat]

------------------
and !!!

the idiotic ''curved space time'' ---
---has nothing to do with G P S !!!
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[GSS]

On Jan 29, 2:28 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/12 1/28/12 10:38 AM, GSS wrote:
>
> > I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
> > essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
> > not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments.[... nonsense]
>
> Already dead and buried. This effect _IS_ taken into account, and amounts to a
> few nanoseconds. Moreover, it is THE WRONG SIGN.
>

The essence of Sagnac effect is to take into account the motion of
receiver during the propagation time of the pulse. It is implied
however, that the motion of receiver must be measured in the same
inertial reference frame in which the speed c of signal propagation is
an isotropic constant. Since the absolute motion is defined with
respect to a universal reference frame in which the speed c of light
propagation is an isotropic constant, the Sagnac effect associated
with absolute motion must be considered in such a universal reference
frame. In the OPERA experiment they have taken into account the sagnac
effect associated with the earth's rotational motion in the ECI frame
which is negligible.

I doubt if you have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
"Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
beam".
http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Giulia_phdthesis.pdf

Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS. For a moment
forget about the neutrino time of flight anomaly. Just reflect on the
crucial question as to how could the PolaRx2e geodetic receivers (with
known accuracy level of one ns) produce synchronization mismatch of
the order of a few hundreds of nanoseconds with superposed diurnal
fluctuations? This is only possible due to the Sagnac effect of
*absolute* motion as explained in detail in my subject paper.

Further, as reported in reference [40], section 5.3 (pp 94), the two
GPS receivers were brought to one location in 2006 to compare their
performance in close-by position. After correcting for the
uncompensated delays, the relative synchronization error between the
two clocks, in close-by position, was found to be within 23 ns. In a
new calibration campaign in July 2007, with a portable primary
standard Cs4000 atomic clock, the synchronization mismatch between
CERN and LNGS clocks was found to be about 424 ns. "The phase of the
Cs4000 had been measured with respect to the XL-DC before leaving CERN
and it was measured again with respect to Clock2 once arrived at LNGS.
The two phases were within 424 ns." This was an important result
showing an absolute synchronization mismatch of 424 ns between two GPS
receivers located at the ends of the baseline. The crucial point is
that how could the two GPS receivers, individually synchronized to the
common GPS time and providing system UTC time at CERN and LNGS, show
the mutual synchronization mismatch of more than 400 ns? This is only
possible due to the Sagnac effect of *absolute* motion as explained in
detail in my subject paper.

> If what you claim were true, the GPS would not work.
>

No, GPS will continue to work as fine as ever. It is the Relativity
that would not work!

Don't you think it is a golden chance to eradicate the unfortunate
cancer of Relativity from the body of Physics once and for all?
What you need to do is synchronize the two PolaRx2e GPS receivers at
CERN and LNGS through a GPS satellite in common view mode and just
measure their mutual synchronization offset with a portable Cs atomic
clock, as was done in July 2007. The measured synchronization offset
will not only *detect* absolute motion, it will also provide a measure
of the absolute velocity as explained in detail in my subject paper.

GSS

[G=EMC^2]

On Jan 29, 9:27 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:28 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On 1/28/12 1/28/12   10:38 AM, GSS wrote:
>
> > > I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
> > > essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
> > > not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments.[... nonsense]
>
> > Already dead and buried. This effect _IS_ taken into account, and amounts to a
> > few nanoseconds. Moreover, it is THE WRONG SIGN.
>
> The essence of Sagnac effect is to take into account the motion of
> receiver during the propagation time of the pulse. It is implied
> however, that the motion of receiver must be measured in the same
> inertial reference frame in which the speed c of signal propagation is
> an isotropic constant. Since the absolute motion is defined with
> respect to a universal reference frame in which the speed c of light
> propagation is an isotropic constant, the Sagnac effect associated
> with absolute motion must be considered in such a universal reference
> frame. In the OPERA experiment they have taken into account the sagnac
> effect associated with the earth's rotational motion in the ECI frame
> which is negligible.
>
> I doubt if you have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
> "Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS

> beam".http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Gi...

How can we be sure we are not measuring "Tachyons" ? TreBert

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/29/12 1/29/12 8:27 AM, GSS wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:28 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/28/12 1/28/12 10:38 AM, GSS wrote:
>>> I have come to the conclusion that the said neutrino anomaly is
>>> essentially the result of Sagnac effect of absolute motion which has
>>> not been taken into account in the OPERA experiments.[... nonsense]
>> Already dead and buried. This effect _IS_ taken into account, and amounts to a
>> few nanoseconds. Moreover, it is THE WRONG SIGN.
>>
> The essence of Sagnac effect is to take into account the motion of
> receiver during the propagation time of the pulse.

Yes. That's about the only correct thing you have said.

> It is implied
> however, that the motion of receiver must be measured in the same
> inertial reference frame in which the speed c of signal propagation is

> an isotropic constant.[...]

Yes. For the GPS that is the ECI frame: the amount is much too small to account
for the anomaly, and has THE WRONG SIGN.

All your fantasies about "absolute motion" are irrelevant, because in the GPS,
the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame. If this were not so, the
GPS simply would not work.


Tom Roberts

[GSS]

On Jan 29, 10:09 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ...

> All your fantasies about "absolute motion" are irrelevant, because in the GPS,
> the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame. If this were not so, > the GPS simply would not work.
>

If the speed of light is an anisotropic constant in ECI frame, the GPS
will still keep working as fine as ever but the fictitious model of
Relativity would not work. If you are still under an illusion that GPS
would not work, kindly spell out as to what exactly you think will go
wrong with the GPS.
(a) Do you think the GPS satellites will crash to the ground?
(b) Or do you think their communication system will get disrupted or
jammed?
(c) Or do you think the atomic clocks in the GPS network will stop
ticking?
(d) Or do you think two distant clocks synchronized to GPS time will
show measurable absolute synchronization mismatch between the two?

If you agree with (d) as your contention of GPS not working then that
is likely to be true. And just by measuring the absolute
synchronization mismatch between two GPS synchronized distant clocks
we can detect absolute motion and refute SR.

I doubt if you have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
"Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
beam".
http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Giulia_phdthesis.pdf

Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS. For a moment
forget about the neutrino time of flight anomaly. Just reflect on the
crucial question as to how could the PolaRx2e geodetic receivers (with
known accuracy level of one ns) produce synchronization mismatch of
the order of a few hundreds of nanoseconds with superposed diurnal
fluctuations? This is only possible due to the Sagnac effect of
*absolute* motion as explained in detail in my subject paper.

Further, as reported in reference [40], section 5.3 (pp 94), the two
GPS receivers were brought to one location in 2006 to compare their
performance in close-by position. After correcting for the
uncompensated delays, the relative synchronization error between the
two clocks, in close-by position, was found to be within 23 ns. In a
new calibration campaign in July 2007, with a portable primary
standard Cs4000 atomic clock, the synchronization mismatch between

CERN and LNGS was found to be about 424 ns. "The phase of the Cs4000

had been measured with respect to the XL-DC before leaving CERN and it
was measured again with respect to Clock2 once arrived at LNGS. The
two phases were within 424 ns." This was an important result showing
an absolute synchronization mismatch of 424 ns between two GPS
receivers located at the ends of the baseline. The crucial point is
that how could the two GPS receivers, individually synchronized to the
common GPS time and providing system UTC time at CERN and LNGS, show
the mutual synchronization mismatch of more than 400 ns? This is only
possible due to the Sagnac effect of *absolute* motion as explained in
detail in my subject paper.

What is your opinion about the measured synchronization mismatch
between the GPS synchronized clocks at CERN and LNGS?

GSS

[Dono.]

On Jan 29, 6:27 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> No, GPS will continue to work as fine as ever. It is the Relativity
> that would not work!
>

LOL

> Don't you think it is a golden chance to eradicate the unfortunate
> cancer of Relativity from the body of Physics

Much better chance would be to cure the cancer that has been eating
your brain away, Gurcharn.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/30/12 1/30/12 - 6:08 AM, GSS wrote:
> On Jan 29, 10:09 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> All your fantasies about "absolute motion" are irrelevant, because in the GPS,
>> the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame. If this were not so,> the GPS simply would not work.
>>
> If the speed of light is an anisotropic constant in ECI frame, the GPS
> will still keep working as fine as ever but the fictitious model of
> Relativity would not work.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. You can put ANY false statement into
the conditional of an if; the result is useless.

The accuracy of the GPS shows that the speed of light is indeed isotropically c
in the ECI, to high accuracy.

> If you are still under an illusion that GPS
> would not work, kindly spell out as to what exactly you think will go

> wrong with the GPS. [... choices showing he does not understand this at all]

If the speed of light were anisotropic in the ECI, constant or not, then the GPS
position fixes would be systematically wrong, and would vary over time (unless
the anisotropy rotates right with the earth). This is so because the GPS
computes positions by assuming the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI
frame. Unless, of course, the putative anisotropy were so small that the other
positioning errors would mask it.

The error is yours, and this is no "illusion". Relativity is not "fictitious",
and it does work very accurately, within its domain.


Tom Roberts

[micro...@hotmail.com]

They are fastest matter in theory. And light can slow down...

[GSS]

On Jan 30, 11:17 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/12 1/30/12 - 6:08 AM, GSS wrote:
>
>> On Jan 29, 10:09 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> All your fantasies about "absolute motion" are irrelevant, because in the GPS,
>>> the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame. If this were not so,
>>> the GPS simply would not work.
>
>> If the speed of light is an anisotropic constant in ECI frame, the GPS
>> will still keep working as fine as ever but the fictitious model of
>> Relativity would not work.
>

> The accuracy of the GPS shows that the speed of light is indeed isotropically c
> in the ECI, to high accuracy.
>
>> If you are still under an illusion that GPS
>> would not work, kindly spell out as to what exactly you think will go
>> wrong with the GPS.
>

> If the speed of light were anisotropic in the ECI, constant or not, then the GPS
> position fixes would be systematically wrong, and would vary over time (unless
> the anisotropy rotates right with the earth). This is so because the GPS
> computes positions by assuming the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI
> frame. Unless, of course, the putative anisotropy were so small that the other
> positioning errors would mask it.
>

So when you initially stated that if the speed of light is not
isotropic in ECI frame, "the GPS simply would not work", you really
did not mean that. Now you agree that even if the light speed is
anisotropic in ECI frame, (a) the GPS satellites will keep moving as
they are, (b) their communication system will keep working as it is,
(c) the atomic clocks in the GPS network will keep ticking as they
are. That is, now you agree that the GPS will keep working as it is,
but the accuracy of measurements derived from GPS data will get
reduced. Let us examine it in more detail.

We can quantify the anisotropy of the speed of light in ECI frame by
(a) Assuming that the speed of light is an isotropic constant c in one
inertial frame of reference which may be denoted as an absolute (or
universal) reference frame.
(b) Assume that the ECI frame is moving with velocity (vector) U in
the absolute reference frame.

This velocity vector U, which may also be referred as the absolute
velocity of the ECI frame, will now fully quantify the anisotropy of
the light speed in the ECI frame. Hence, to examine the effects of the
light speed anisotropy in the ECI frame on the accuracy of GPS
measurements is identical to the examination of the effects of
absolute velocity U on the accuracy of GPS measurements. And this is
precisely what I have done in great detail in the subject paper
referred in my original post. Therefore, you are requested to first
study the subject paper with some patience and mental concentration
and then bring out your observations, if any.

I have brought out in the said paper that synchronization of two
distant clocks A and B, through a GPS satellite in common view mode,
is effectively equivalent to their e-synchronization and that the
measured absolute synchronization mismatch between such e-synchronized
clocks will provide a measure of the absolute velocity of their
baseline AB. Even though we started the quantification of the light
speed anisotropy in the ECI frame by assuming the absolute velocity
vector U of the ECI frame, we have come to the conclusion that the
absolute velocity vector U can be practically determined or measured
simply by measuring the absolute synchronization mismatch between two
GPS synchronized clocks at the ends of a known baseline AB. This is a
very important result which you must study with some seriousness and
without getting unduly perturbed about the fate of your pet
Relativity.

Now, can you give your opinion about the measured synchronization

[Tom Roberts]

You REALLY need to learn how to read. Just look up there in the text you quoted,
and see where I explicitly state what I meant: if light speed were significantly
anisotropic in the ECI, then the GPS would not work because its position fixes
would be WRONG. After all, for a system like the GPS, obtaining accurate
position fixes is what it is designed to do, and an essential aspect of its
"working".


> [... much nonsense]

The success and accuracy of the GPS shows your fantasies are irrelevant.

There's no point in continuing, until you learn how to read.


Tom Roberts

[GSS]

On Jan 31, 10:27 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ...

>>> If the speed of light were anisotropic in the ECI, constant or not, then the GPS
>>> position fixes would be systematically wrong, and would vary over time (unless
>>> the anisotropy rotates right with the earth). This is so because the GPS
>>> computes positions by assuming the speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI
>>> frame. Unless, of course, the putative anisotropy were so small that the other
>>> positioning errors would mask it.
>
>> So when you initially stated that if the speed of light is not
>> isotropic in ECI frame, "the GPS simply would not work", you really
>> did not mean that.
>
> You REALLY need to learn how to read. Just look up there in the text you quoted,
> and see where I explicitly state what I meant: if light speed were significantly
> anisotropic in the ECI, then the GPS would not work because its position fixes
> would be WRONG. After all, for a system like the GPS, obtaining accurate
> position fixes is what it is designed to do, and an essential aspect of its
> "working".
>

Rubbish.
You have no idea how to quantify the light speed anisotropy in the ECI
and you have no idea how to quantitatively correlate such anisotropy
with the positioning accuracy of the GPS system. I doubt if you really
know about various errors which are already encountered in the
position determination with the GPS. When you have no idea regarding
quantification of anisotropy in ECI frame and its correlation with the
accuracy of GPS, your reference to 'significantly anisotropic' is
meaningless false assertion. That is why I call it rubbish.

I explained to you in the last post that the effects of the light

speed anisotropy in the ECI frame on the accuracy of GPS measurements

are identical to the the effects of absolute velocity U on the

accuracy of GPS measurements. And this is precisely what I have done
in great detail in the subject paper referred in my original post.

Since you find it difficult to understand all this, you prefer to
delete it as 'nonsense'.

In any position determination with GPS, synchronization of the
receiver clock with the GPS time is an essential step. The effect of
absolute motion (and hence of the light speed anisotropy) on the
synchronization mismatch between the receiver clock and the GPS time
has been examined in detail in section 3 of the subject paper. I have
also explained it there that the averaging of the synchronization data
from all satellites in view, effectively minimizes the absolute
velocity induced synchronization mismatch and hence minimizes its
effect on positioning errors.

Hence, your assertion, "the GPS simply would not work" if light speed
is not isotropic in the ECI frame is not only wrong it also appears to
be an intentional mischief to distract the attention from the current
burning issue which is the neutrino speed anomaly. You have
consistently avoided to make any comment or give your opinion on this
burning issue, even after specifically being requested to do that.

Therefore, I am repeating my request for your opinion for the last
time. Please do not delete it even if you find yourself totally
incapable of giving any opinion on this issue. However, you are
welcome not to respond at all if you so please.

By now you must have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,

The Sagnac effect of absolute motion may be practically demonstrated

through quantitative measurements of time offsets induced by GPS
synchronization of clocks in common view mode. For this purpose, the
PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers, along with Cs clocks, can be delinked
from the CERN and LNGS system networks and independently set to
synchronize with the GPS system time through a common satellite in
view. After the Cs clocks of the PolaRx2e receivers are synchronized
and locked to the GPS time at both ends of the baseline, their mutual
synchronization mismatch can be measured with a portable precision
atomic clock such as Symmetricom’s SA.45s CSAC. The synchronization
mismatch between GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS can be
directly correlated with the component of absolute velocity U_ab along
the baseline AB (LNGS to CERN) through the relation D.U_ab/c^2.

Detection of absolute motion through measurement of synchronization
mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will
therefore play the role of 21st century Michelson-Morley experiment
and will invalidate the second postulate of SR. Apart from doing this
simple experiment for measurement of synchronization mismatch between
the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN-LNGS setup, it can also be
easily replicated anywhere else on the globe.

Now can you give your opinion about the measured synchronization

[Dono.]

On Feb 1, 7:07 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Detection of absolute motion through measurement of synchronization
> mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will
> therefore play the role of 21st century Michelson-Morley experiment
> and will invalidate the second postulate of SR.

> ASS

Delusions, delusions....

[GSS]

On Feb 1, 8:22 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 7:07 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Detection of absolute motion through measurement of synchronization
> > mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will
> > therefore play the role of 21st century Michelson-Morley experiment
> > and will invalidate the second postulate of SR.

> > GSS
>
> Delusions, delusions....

No delusions.

Signatures of absolute motion are already visible in the -
(a) Measured synchronization mismatch of the order of a few hundreds
of nanoseconds in the PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers at CERN and LNGS
when their accuracy level is known to be about one nanosecond.
(b) Measured diurnal variation in the synchronization mismatch of the
PolaRx2e geodetic receivers at CERN and LNGS.
(c) Measured synchronization mismatch of about 424 nanoseconds in the
standard GPS receivers at CERN and LNGS when their synchronization
mismatch in close-by position is measured to be only about 23
nanosecond.

Practical measurement of absolute synchronization mismatch between two
clocks (located at the ends of a long baseline) synchronized through a
GPS satellite in common view mode, is the simplest thing to do
anywhere on the globe. There is no reason for any delay for carrying
out this experimental verification of the absolute motion.

[Dono.]

On Feb 1, 8:17 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:22 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> > On Feb 1, 7:07 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Detection of absolute motion through measurement of synchronization
> > > mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will
> > > therefore play the role of 21st century Michelson-Morley experiment
> > > and will invalidate the second postulate of SR.

> > > ASS
>
> > Delusions, delusions....
>
> No delusions.
>

Correction: SEVERE delusions.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/1/12 2/1/12 9:07 AM, GSS wrote:
> On Jan 31, 10:27 pm, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> if light speed were significantly
>> anisotropic in the ECI, then the GPS would not work because its position fixes
>> would be WRONG.

> Rubbish.
> You have no idea how to quantify the light speed anisotropy in the ECI [...]

Your claims are the rubbish, not mine.

First, consider an idealization of the GPS in which we ignore the earth itself,
and consider a single circular orbit with just two satellites at opposite sides
of the orbit. The orbit has an altitude of 20,200 km, and the earth has a radius
of 6,370 km, so the satellite orbit has a radius of 26,570 km. A receiver at the
center of the orbit would receive signals 26570km/c = 88 ms after they are sent.
The GPS has a position accuracy of about 3 meters, which corresponds to a light
flight time of 10 ns. So the speed of light must be within 10ns/88ms = 0.1 parts
per million of the nominal speed of light. If the one-way speed of light were
anisotropic in the ECI, and it happened to be along the line between the
satellites of, say, 100 parts per million, the signals would reach the receiver
offset by 88ms*0.000100 = 8.8 microseconds, giving a position error of 2.6 km.
That is HUGE compared to the actual error of 3 meters.

Now that estimate used an idealized model for simplicity in the geometry. But
the same argument holds, it's just that satellites are visible from a given
location only for about 1/4 of their orbit, so if we reduce the above estimate
by a factor of 1/4 it would correspond approximately to the error expected for
the actual GPS. It is still ENORMOUS compared to the actual errors observed.

The differences between this simple geometry and the actual
do affect the accuracy of this estimate, but not by more than a
factor of 4 or so. I'm sure it is within a factor of 10.

Yes, the receiver uses many satellites, but if the speed of light were
anisotropic, then ALL of their signals would be affected, and the error estimate
is unaffected. Of course some of the satellites' signals would be along the axis
of the anisotropy, and some would not, so the receiver's errorbar would be MUCH
larger than the usual 3 meters.

One might initially guess that if the speed of light is anisotropic, then since
the satellite orbits are not perfectly known, perhaps the anisotropy could be
hidden by a compensating offset of the orbit. This does not stand up to
scrutiny, because a) the orbit must be an ellipse with a focus at the center of
the earth, b) the orbits are steered to be as circular and correct as possible,
and c) the ratio of light paths from satellites with faster and slower speeds
varies over the surface of the earth, and it simply is not possible to have both
an accuracy of 3 meters EVERYWHERE and an anisotropy that is larger than about 1
part per million.

Yes, I am ignoring a host of small errors. We know they total to
about 3 meters, so they are negligible compared to that 2.6 km
error estimate. My point is that a 1 ppm anisotropy contributes
an error comparable to all the others.

> I explained to you in the last post that the effects of the light
> speed anisotropy in the ECI frame on the accuracy of GPS measurements
> are identical to the the effects of absolute velocity U on the
> accuracy of GPS measurements.

And as shown above, any anisotropy is smaller than ~ 1 part per million. So BOTH
of your effects are smaller than that.

> In any position determination with GPS, synchronization of the
> receiver clock with the GPS time is an essential step. The effect of
> absolute motion (and hence of the light speed anisotropy) on the
> synchronization mismatch between the receiver clock and the GPS time
> has been examined in detail in section 3 of the subject paper. I have
> also explained it there that the averaging of the synchronization data
> from all satellites in view, effectively minimizes the absolute
> velocity induced synchronization mismatch and hence minimizes its
> effect on positioning errors.

If the speed of light were anisotropic, for a given receiver the light-path
length projected along the axis of anisotropy varies for each satellite. For a
100 ppm anisotropy, this would appear to the receiver as the satellites being in
erroneous positions by as much as 2.6 km and as little as 0km. The receiver
would know this, because the overall error of fit for position would have
errorbars comparable to that size (rather than the usual 3 meters or so).

Your paper is far too obfuscated for me to bother examining it for errors. Why
don't you try to find an error in the above simple estimate? I grant the
estimate is only accurate to about a factor of 10, but that is sufficient to
rule out any anisotropy larger than ~ 1 ppm.

> Hence, your assertion, "the GPS simply would not work" if light speed
> is not isotropic in the ECI frame is not only wrong

Nonsense. Show an error in the above estimate.

> it also appears to
> be an intentional mischief to distract the attention from the current
> burning issue which is the neutrino speed anomaly. You have
> consistently avoided to make any comment or give your opinion on this
> burning issue, even after specifically being requested to do that.

I have no comment to make on the neutrino speed anomaly. Like most physicists at
Fermilab, I suspect that it is in error. But I have not had time to study it.

Note the above limit of 1 ppm on the anisotropy is insufficient to explain the
OPERA result of 25 ppm over the vacuum speed of light. Moreover, the OPERA
measurement is averaged over all orientations of the earth, which should average
away most the effects of an anisotropy [@], leaving only a larger errorbar.

[@] unless it just happens to be along the earth's axis.

> By now you must have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
> "Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
> beam".
> http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Giulia_phdthesis.pdf
>
> Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
> the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
> clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS.

I had not seen this before. Those variations are very worrisome, and indicate
that the errorbars for the measurement may not have been computed correctly.
That could mean that the measurement is not SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR.

> For a moment
> forget about the neutrino time of flight anomaly. Just reflect on the
> crucial question as to how could the PolaRx2e geodetic receivers (with
> known accuracy level of one ns) produce synchronization mismatch of
> the order of a few hundreds of nanoseconds with superposed diurnal
> fluctuations?

This is also worrisome, and again indicates the measurement might not be
SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR. But I have not studied this.

> This is only possible due to the Sagnac effect of
> *absolute* motion as explained in detail in my subject paper.

Nonsense. That is by no means the "only" possibility. FAR more likely is some
sort of instrumentation effect. But I have not studied this.


> [...]

I do not have time to study this in the detail it requires. You do bring up
concerns about the instrumentation that I have not heard before. But I have not
looked, either.

> This is only
> possible due to the Sagnac effect of *absolute* motion as explained in
> detail in my subject paper.

More nonsense. An instrumentation effect could also do this, and seems MUCH more
likely. As shown above, the sort of anisotropy you imagine cannot exceed 1 ppm,
and that is insufficient to account for the OPERA result.

Actually, that 1 ppm limit is from the GPS, and other measurements
put considerably more stringent limits on such an anisotropy,
on the order of a few parts per billion.


> [... more nonsense and grandiose delusions]

Your effect cannot possibly account for this. Instrumentation effects presumably
can do so, but as I said, I have hot had the time to study this.


Tom Roberts

[GSS]

On Feb 3, 10:44 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/1/12 2/1/12 9:07 AM, GSS wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 10:27 pm, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> if light speed were significantly
>>> anisotropic in the ECI, then the GPS would not work because its position fixes
>>> would be WRONG.
>> Rubbish.
>> You have no idea how to quantify the light speed anisotropy in the ECI [...]
>
> Your claims are the rubbish, not mine.
>
> First, consider an idealization of the GPS in which we ignore the earth itself,
> and consider a single circular orbit with just two satellites at opposite sides
> of the orbit. The orbit has an altitude of 20,200 km, and the earth has a radius
> of 6,370 km, so the satellite orbit has a radius of 26,570 km. A receiver at the
> center of the orbit would receive signals 26570km/c = 88 ms after they are sent.
> The GPS has a position accuracy of about 3 meters, which corresponds to a light
> flight time of 10 ns. So the speed of light must be within 10ns/88ms = 0.1 parts
> per million of the nominal speed of light. If the one-way speed of light were
> anisotropic in the ECI, and it happened to be along the line between the
> satellites of, say, 100 parts per million, the signals would reach the receiver
> offset by 88ms*0.000100 = 8.8 microseconds, giving a position error of 2.6 km.
> That is HUGE compared to the actual error of 3 meters.
>

This is pathetic! Perhaps you are used to silly thought experiments of
Relativity. What was the compulsion for you to consider two satellites
in orbit with a radius of 26,570 km without any earth at the center?
How can the satellites remain in orbit without the earth? Why couldn't
you start off with a receiver on the surface of earth receiving the
signals from a satellite in 20200km/c = 66 ms?

Then why do you consider hypothetical parts per million of c? It is
much simpler to consider the orbital speed of earth (about 30 km/s or
100 parts per million of c) in the Barycentric Celestial Reference
Frame (BCRF). Do you know that for all deep space or inter-planetary
flights it is essential to use BCRF and speed of light c is considered
an isotropic constant in this frame? While c is considered isotropic
in BCRF, the light speed becomes anisotropic in ECI frame with an
anisotropy of 30 km/s or 100 parts per million of c.

Now you could simply say that during 66 ms of signal propagation time,
the earth moves about 2 km in BCRF. Then you could have asked, "how
can we ever achieve a ground position accuracy of about 3 m with GPS
satellite signals when the earth moves in BCRF by about 2 km during
the signal propagation time?"

The position fix of a GPS receiver is done in the earth centered,
earth fixed (ECEF) coordinates whereas the earth moves in BCRF. Two km
movement of earth in BCRF during the signal propagation time cannot be
considered as position error in ECEF frame.

> Now that estimate used an idealized model for simplicity in the geometry. But
> the same argument holds, it's just that satellites are visible from a given
> location only for about 1/4 of their orbit, so if we reduce the above estimate
> by a factor of 1/4 it would correspond approximately to the error expected for
> the actual GPS. It is still ENORMOUS compared to the actual errors observed.
>
> The differences between this simple geometry and the actual
> do affect the accuracy of this estimate, but not by more than a
> factor of 4 or so. I'm sure it is within a factor of 10.
>

How can you even consider this trash as an estimate of position error
of a GPS receiver?
What has the satellite orbit visibility to do with position error
estimates?

Perhaps you are considering the 2 km motion of the earth in BCRF
during the signal propagation time from a satellite to the receiver as
*your* ESTIMATE of the position error. No, that will only imply an
inaccuracy in the time offset of the receiver clock and the
corresponding computation of pseudorange. It appears that you are
totally unfamiliar with the detailed procedure involved in computation
of ground positions and position errors of a GPS recdeiver. First of
all you must learn some basics.
http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm
"After deactivation of the selective availability the accuracy rose to
approximately 15 m, depending of the number and position of available
satellites."
http://www.sxbluegps.com/gps-error-Budget.html

> Yes, the receiver uses many satellites, but if the speed of light were
> anisotropic, then ALL of their signals would be affected, and the error estimate
> is unaffected. Of course some of the satellites' signals would be along the axis
> of the anisotropy, and some would not, so the receiver's errorbar would be MUCH
> larger than the usual 3 meters.
>
> One might initially guess that if the speed of light is anisotropic, then since
> the satellite orbits are not perfectly known, perhaps the anisotropy could be
> hidden by a compensating offset of the orbit. This does not stand up to
> scrutiny, because a) the orbit must be an ellipse with a focus at the center of
> the earth, b) the orbits are steered to be as circular and correct as possible,
> and c) the ratio of light paths from satellites with faster and slower speeds
> varies over the surface of the earth, and it simply is not possible to have both
> an accuracy of 3 meters EVERYWHERE and an anisotropy that is larger than about 1
> part per million.
>

You can see the error in your estimate only after you understand the
correct procedure for computing the receiver position from signals
received from five or more satellites. For this purpose you must study
the pseudorange equations and the double difference pseudorange
equations in,
http://home.tiscali.nl/samsvl/DDCarr.pdf

[Position is determined from multiple pseudo-range measurements at a
single measurement epoch. The pseudo range measurements are used
together with SV position estimates based on the precise orbital
elements sent by each SV. Receiver position is computed from the SV
positions, the measured pseudo-ranges (corrected for SV clock offsets
and ionospheric delays), and last computed receiver position estimate.
GPS positioning is sometimes referred to as trilateration, but would
be more accurately referred to as pseudo-trilateration. By finding the
pseudo-range of an additional satellite for precise position
calculation, the time error can also be estimated. Therefore, by
having the pseudoranges and the locations of five or more satellites,
the actual receiver's position along the x, y, z axes and the time
error can be computed accurately. More SVs can provide extra position
fix certainty and can allow detection of out-of-tolerance signals
under certain circumstances. Satellite geometry can also affect the
accuracy of GPS positioning. In general, the wider the angle between
satellites, the better the measurement.]

Your error can now be summarized as,
(a) You are unable to understand that the effect of light speed
anisotropy in ECI is equivalent to the effect of absolute motion of
ECI frame.
(b) You are unable to differentiate the motion of earth in BCRF during
the signal propagation time, from the receiver position error in ECEF
frame.
(c) You don't understand that the effect of light speed anisotropy in
ECI frame manifests itself in the receiver time offset errors and not
position errors.
(d) You find it difficult to understand that the receiver time offset
errors can be eliminated or minimized by using signals from five or
more satellites.
(e) You are unable to even read and understand my detailed analysis of
the effect of absolute motion on the receiver clock time offsets in my
subject paper.

>> By now you must have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
>> "Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
>> beam".

>>http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Gi...

>
>> Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
>> the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
>> clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS.
>
> I had not seen this before. Those variations are very worrisome, and indicate
> that the errorbars for the measurement may not have been computed correctly.
> That could mean that the measurement is not SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR.
>

No, those variations are not worrisome. They are in fact the
signatures of absolute motion and pointers towards the inevitable end
of Relativity.

>> For a moment
>> forget about the neutrino time of flight anomaly. Just reflect on the
>> crucial question as to how could the PolaRx2e geodetic receivers (with
>> known accuracy level of one ns) produce synchronization mismatch of
>> the order of a few hundreds of nanoseconds with superposed diurnal
>> fluctuations?
>
> This is also worrisome, and again indicates the measurement might not be
> SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR. But I have not studied this.
>
>> This is only possible due to the Sagnac effect of
>> *absolute* motion as explained in detail in my subject paper.
>
> Nonsense. That is by no means the "only" possibility. FAR more likely is some
> sort of instrumentation effect. But I have not studied this.
>

Agreed that you have not studied this and are clueless to comment
about the measured synchronization mismatch between the PolaRx2e
geodetic receivers at CERN and LNGS. Now I propose to practically
demonstrate the Sagnac effect of absolute motion through quantitative

measurements of time offsets induced by GPS synchronization of clocks
in common view mode. For this purpose, the PolaRx2e geodetic GPS

receivers, along with Cs clocks, can be de-linked from the CERN and

LNGS system networks and independently set to synchronize with the GPS
system time through a common satellite in view. After the Cs clocks of
the PolaRx2e receivers are synchronized and locked to the GPS time at
both ends of the baseline, their mutual synchronization mismatch can
be measured with a portable precision atomic clock such as
Symmetricom’s SA.45s CSAC. The synchronization mismatch between GPS

synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS is expected to be much more
than 500 nanoseconds and may even be in the range of 1000 nanoseconds.
This check can be carried out at CERN in about a week or two.
Practical verification of the expected synchronization mismatch
between GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will establish
absolute motion and the light speed anisotropy in the ECI frame and
hence invalidate the Relativity once and for all. Do you agree that
this simple check must be carried out immediately? Please study
whatever you consider necessary and then reply.

GSS

[Dono.]

On Feb 5, 8:27 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Your error can now be summarized as,
> (a) You are unable to understand that the effect of light speed
> anisotropy in ECI is equivalent to the effect of absolute motion of
> ECI frame.

Stop right here, imbecile. There is no "light speed anisotropy in
ECI", you simply do not understand the Sagnac effect. What you take as
"light speed anisotropy" is simply the difference in closing speeds
for the two counter-rotating light fronts. A classical mistake
repeated by many generations of cranks: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/5/12 2/5/12 - 10:27 AM, GSS wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:44 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> First, consider an idealization of the GPS in which we ignore the earth itself,
>> and consider a single circular orbit with just two satellites at opposite sides
>> of the orbit. The orbit has an altitude of 20,200 km, and the earth has a radius
>> of 6,370 km, so the satellite orbit has a radius of 26,570 km. A receiver at the
>> center of the orbit would receive signals 26570km/c = 88 ms after they are sent.
>> The GPS has a position accuracy of about 3 meters, which corresponds to a light
>> flight time of 10 ns. So the speed of light must be within 10ns/88ms = 0.1 parts
>> per million of the nominal speed of light. If the one-way speed of light were
>> anisotropic in the ECI, and it happened to be along the line between the
>> satellites of, say, 100 parts per million, the signals would reach the receiver
>> offset by 88ms*0.000100 = 8.8 microseconds, giving a position error of 2.6 km.
>> That is HUGE compared to the actual error of 3 meters.
>>
> This is pathetic! Perhaps you are used to silly thought experiments of
> Relativity. What was the compulsion for you to consider two satellites
> in orbit with a radius of 26,570 km without any earth at the center?

Simplicity in the description. You MUST learn how to abstract the important
details from a problem, so you can simplify it to its essential aspects, and
omit irrelevant complexities. THAT is what I did, but YOU don't understand it.

During a single position fix, the satellites do not move
very much relative to the ECI. In an idealized estimate
like this, they need not move at all.

Then I went on to relate that excessively simplistic estimate to a more
realistic model of the GPS:

>> Now that estimate used an idealized model for simplicity in the geometry. But
>> the same argument holds, it's just that satellites are visible from a given
>> location only for about 1/4 of their orbit, so if we reduce the above estimate
>> by a factor of 1/4 it would correspond approximately to the error expected for
>> the actual GPS. It is still ENORMOUS compared to the actual errors observed.
>>
>> The differences between this simple geometry and the actual
>> do affect the accuracy of this estimate, but not by more than a
>> factor of 4 or so. I'm sure it is within a factor of 10.
>>
> How can you even consider this trash as an estimate of position error
> of a GPS receiver?

Because it is an estimate of the error introduced by an anisotropy in light
speed in the ECI. You need to LEARN how such estimates are made.

> What has the satellite orbit visibility to do with position error
> estimates?

You need to learn how the GPS receivers compute their position. Hint: they do so
by receiving signals from GPS satellites, and they can do that ONLY from
satellites visible to them. The angles from receiver to satellites used in the
position fix affect the errorbars of that fix.

For instance, if all satellites were directly overhead, the
errorbars would be HUGE, because the only direct measurement
would be of altitude, and that measurement is almost 100%
correlated with the time fix. The wider the angular
separation between satellites, the smaller the errorbar;
that's one reason why it is better to use more satellites.

> Perhaps you are considering the 2 km motion of the earth in BCRF
> during the signal propagation time from a satellite to the receiver as
> *your* ESTIMATE of the position error.

NOT AT ALL! You also need to learn how to read without imposing your personal
dreams and fantasies into other people's text.

The GPS uses the ECI frame, and the BCRF is utterly and completely irrelevant.
We know this because: a) the model used in the GPS ignores the BCRF, and b) the
GPS works.

> (a) You are unable to understand that the effect of light speed
> anisotropy in ECI is equivalent to the effect of absolute motion of
> ECI frame.

I understand that IN SOME MODELS this is so. But in the model used by the GPS it
is not so. Moreover, no significant light speed anisotropy in the ECI is
observed by the GPS, or by other (more accurate) experiments. Here "significant"
means "comparable to the resolution", which for the GPS is typically about 3 meters.

So in those other models, the limit on light speed anisotropy becomes a limit on
"the absolute motion".

>>> By now you must have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
>>> "Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
>>> beam".
>>> http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Gi...
>>
>>> Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
>>> the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
>>> clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS.
>>
>> I had not seen this before. Those variations are very worrisome, and indicate
>> that the errorbars for the measurement may not have been computed correctly.
>> That could mean that the measurement is not SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR.
>>
> No, those variations are not worrisome. They are in fact the
> signatures of absolute motion and pointers towards the inevitable end
> of Relativity.

Your hopes and dreams are not science. If, as I suspect, these variations imply
much larger errorbars on the measurement, then it might well be that it is not
significantly inconsistent with the predictions of SR at all [#]. That would
mean that it cannot contribute to "the end of relativity" (because only a
SIGNIFICANT experimental refutation could possibly do that).

[#] a factor of 2 or 2.5 would do this.


> [...]


Tom Roberts

[oriel36]

On Feb 8, 10:51 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> The GPS uses the ECI frame, and the BCRF is utterly and completely irrelevant.
> We know this because: a) the model used in the GPS ignores the BCRF, and b) the
> GPS works.
>

ECI,Ra/Dec or call it any other of the blizzard of acronyms,it is
still trying to run the daily and orbital motions off right ascension
like they did in the late 17th century when it was called the
equatorial coordinate system,framework or what have you.


All those sats in a Sun synchronous orbit will watch the polar
coordinates precess beneath them,not because of any 'equatorial mass
or bulge' but because the Earth naturally turns to the central Sun
about a traveling axis separated from the daily rotational axis.It is
easy enough to see the orbital behavior from a sequence of images of
the annual precession of Uranus where daily rotation to the central
Sun runs South to North and its quasi-rotation to the central Sun runs
East to West -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

C'mon now guys,this is the 21st century and you can't go running daily
and orbital motions off Ra/Dec or whatever the current buzzword you
call it nor can you project this system into the celestial arena as
anything other than a limited convenience that predicts relative
positions of celestial objects to each other hence the ability to
predict lunar and solar eclipses as days and dates within the
calendar.

For goodness sake,cutting yourselves to pieces trying to fit the Lat/
Long system and the AM/PM conventions with the the exclusive use of
Right Ascension/Dec never works and it is holding up huge swathes of
productive work.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Neutrinos are like light in empty space in that they never
accelerated. They are fastest matter and in their time math are
inverse Gamma infinity slow. They began to move at fastest speed for
matter and slowest in their own time rate.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[John Gogo]

Tom says: You need to learn how the GPS receivers compute their

position. Hint: they do so
by receiving signals from GPS satellites, and they can do that ONLY
from
satellites visible to them.

Are you saying that the GPS system is a visual measuring system?

[John Gogo]

Where's the optics?

[GSS]

On Feb 9, 3:51 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 2/5/12 - 10:27 AM, GSS wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 10:44 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> First, consider an idealization of the GPS in which we ignore the earth itself,
>>> and consider a single circular orbit with just two satellites at opposite sides
>>> of the orbit. The orbit has an altitude of 20,200 km, and the earth has a radius
>>> of 6,370 km, so the satellite orbit has a radius of 26,570 km. A receiver at the
>>> center of the orbit would receive signals 26570km/c = 88 ms after they are sent.
>>> The GPS has a position accuracy of about 3 meters, which corresponds to a light
>>> flight time of 10 ns. So the speed of light must be within 10ns/88ms = 0.1 parts
>>> per million of the nominal speed of light. If the one-way speed of light were
>>> anisotropic in the ECI, and it happened to be along the line between the
>>> satellites of, say, 100 parts per million, the signals would reach the receiver
>>> offset by 88ms*0.000100 = 8.8 microseconds, giving a position error of 2.6 km.
>>> That is HUGE compared to the actual error of 3 meters.
>
>> This is pathetic! Perhaps you are used to silly thought experiments of
>> Relativity. What was the compulsion for you to consider two satellites
>> in orbit with a radius of 26,570 km without any earth at the center?
>
> Simplicity in the description. You MUST learn how to abstract the important
> details from a problem, so you can simplify it to its essential aspects, and

> omit irrelevant complexities....
>
Let us simplify the problem. Relativity has taught you to believe that
GPS cannot work if the light speed were to be anisotropic in the ECI
frame. Since GPS is actually working, you believe that light speed
cannot be anisotropic in ECI frame - that is if the teachings of
Relativity were to be true.

What I say is that let us practically verify if the light speed is
anisotropic in the ECI frame or not. If the light speed is found to be
significantly anisotropic in the ECI frame then you will agree to
discard Relativity for ever.

I propose to practically demonstrate the anisotropy of light speed in
the ECI frame through quantitative measurements of time offsets

induced by GPS synchronization of clocks in common view mode. For this
purpose, the PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers, along with Cs clocks,
can be de-linked from the CERN and LNGS system networks and
independently set to synchronize with the GPS system time through a
common satellite in view. After the Cs clocks of the PolaRx2e
receivers are synchronized and locked to the GPS time at both ends of
the baseline, their mutual synchronization mismatch can be measured
with a portable precision atomic clock such as Symmetricom’s SA.45s

CSAC. If the light speed anisotropy exists in the ECI frame, the

synchronization mismatch between GPS synchronized Cs clocks at CERN
and LNGS is expected to be much more than 500 nanoseconds and may even

be in the range of 1000 nanoseconds. On the other hand, if the light
speed is actually isotropic in the ECI frame as claimed by Relativity,
then the synchronization mismatch between GPS synchronized Cs clocks
at CERN and LNGS will be less than 10 nanoseconds, since the measured
accuracy of these receivers is known to be about one nanosecond. This

check can be carried out at CERN in about a week or two. Practical
verification of the expected synchronization mismatch between GPS

synchronized Cs clocks at CERN and LNGS will establish the light speed

anisotropy in the ECI frame and hence invalidate the Relativity once
and for all.

Do you agree with the proposed experimental verification and that this

simple check must be carried out immediately?

GSS

>>>> By now you must have gone through the Ref. [40] of the CERN paper,
>>>> "Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
>>>> beam".
>>>>http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/ptb/theses/theses/Brunetti-Gi...
>
>>>> Kindly refer to figures 5.7 and 9.1 of the above reference and note
>>>> the periodic daily oscillations over and above certain mean values of
>>>> clock synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS.
>
>>> I had not seen this before. Those variations are very worrisome, and indicate
>>> that the errorbars for the measurement may not have been computed correctly.
>>> That could mean that the measurement is not SIGNIFICANTLY in conflict with SR.
>
>> No, those variations are not worrisome. They are in fact the
>> signatures of absolute motion and pointers towards the inevitable end
>> of Relativity.
>
> Your hopes and dreams are not science. If, as I suspect, these variations imply
> much larger errorbars on the measurement, then it might well be that it is not

> significantly inconsistent with the predictions of SR at all. That would

> mean that it cannot contribute to "the end of relativity" (because only a
> SIGNIFICANT experimental refutation could possibly do that).
>

> Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/8/12 2/8/12 - 7:52 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> Tom says: You need to learn how the GPS receivers compute their
> position. Hint: they do so
> by receiving signals from GPS satellites, and they can do that ONLY
> from
> satellites visible to them.
>
> Are you saying that the GPS system is a visual measuring system?

No. Here "visible" means "able to receive signals from the satellite", and those
signals travel only over line-of-sight (straight line) paths.

That is, the receiver can only use satellites that are above the receiver's
horizon at the time of the fix.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/9/12 2/9/12 11:48 PM, GSS wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:51 am, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Let us simplify the problem. Relativity has taught you to believe that
> GPS cannot work if the light speed were to be anisotropic in the ECI
> frame.

This is not just "relativity teaching me". This does not depend directly on
relativity, it merely depends on the signals traveling isotropically with speed
c in the ECI, for the simple reason that the receivers' software ASSUMES that
[#]. If that assumption were wrong, the GPS simply would not work. But it does.

All you need to do is THINK about it. Each satellite broadcasts its orbital
parameters often enough so its location can be determined whenever it sends a
time-stamped signal. Based on the time that each signal is received and the
value of c, the receiver draws a sphere around each satellite's location, and
looks for the intersection of all the spheres from all visible satellites. If
the speed of light were significantly anisotropic, the spheres on one side of
the receiver would be smaller, and those on the other side would be larger [@],
causing the receiver to obtain a position fix that is offset in space from its
actual position. Moreover, the receiver would KNOW this, because its computation
of its internal clock time (from those same signals) would have large errorbars
[%]. From the actual behavior of GPS receivers, we conclude that any anisotropy
in the speed of light in the ECI is less than about 0.1 parts per million (see
my previous post). Other measurements put more stringent limits than that on any
anisotropy.

Note that you cannot claim that the anisotropy is masked by systematic errors in
the orbits, because that would a) violate well-tested orbital mechanics, b) make
the position errors vary enormously over the surface of the globe, and c) ignore
those other measurements. As I estimated before, a 100 ppm anisotropy would
generate position errors of several kilometers.

[#] They ASSUME this for two very good reasons: a) relativity
has been found to be valid, and b) it works, in that the
receivers compute accurate position fixes, and they also
compute errorbars commensurate with the actual errors.

[@] Remember the sphere is drawn ASSUMING the speed of light is
c, but if it were actually anisotropic, then the time difference
between emission and reception would actually be larger or
smaller than true-distance/c, causing the receiver to draw larger
or smaller spheres.

[%] The average time computed by the receiver is in error only
by (v/c)^2 (which is not observable for v/c = 100 ppm), but
the errorbar for the different satellites is proportional to v/c
and amounts to ~9 microseconds for a 100 ppm anisotropy. That
is ENORMOUS, and would cause the receiver to reject the fix.

> Since GPS is actually working, you believe that light speed
> cannot be anisotropic in ECI frame - that is if the teachings of
> Relativity were to be true.

See above. This does not depend directly on relativity being valid, it is based
on the software of the GPS receivers. Given their ACTUAL software, a significant
anisotropy WOULD make their position fixes have both large position errors and
large errorbars in timing, neither of which is actually observed.

> What I say is that let us practically verify if the light speed is
> anisotropic in the ECI frame or not. If the light speed is found to be
> significantly anisotropic in the ECI frame then you will agree to
> discard Relativity for ever.

The GPS receivers verify the isotropy of the speed of light in the ECI, at EACH
AND EVERY POSITION FIX THEY MAKE. Because their timing errorbars amount to about
10 ns, not the 9 microseconds a 100 ppm anisotropy would generate (and not the
even larger errorbar your supposed anisotropy would generate). Any GPS receiver
that computed such a large errorbar would reject the entire computation, and
thus NEVER report its position.

It has already been done. The OPERA experimenters did something quite similar,
with errorbars smaller than your claimed 500-1000 ns (though they are large
enough to be worrisome about the errorbars they claimed for their measurement [$]).

Apparently you have not bothered to read the reference you gave.

[$] But note that Brunetti's thesis describes 2006 and 2007
intercalibrations, not later ones, and stated they intended
to improve it via GPS common view. OPERA's measurement paper
mentions GPS common view, so it's likely that the large errors
in Brunetti's thesis have been greatly reduced. That paper
also mentions transporting an atomic clock between CERN and
LNGS, but I don't have the details to hand right now.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/12/12 2/12/12 12:55 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> [...]

I forgot to mention why I chose an anisotropy of 100 parts per million for my
examples: for earth's orbital velocity, v/c = 100 ppm. In ANY theory in which
"absolute motion" is important, that motion is modulated by this value during
different parts of the year, so it is a firm lower bound on the "absolute
motion" of the earth. And as I showed, the observed operation of the GPS rules
out any anisotropy approaching this value.


Tom Roberts

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Our statistical measurements of light's speed and closing velocity
creates a window of motion that prevents the detection the of low
motion of the Earth around the Sun.

Mitchell Raemsch

[GSS]

Friends,
With reference to the CERN collaboration paper titled, "Measurement of
the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"
On 23 Feb 2012, CERN authorities released the following statement:
"The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host
laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could
have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both
require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one
would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would
diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to
provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to
an overestimate of the neutrino’s time of flight. The second concerns
the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the
OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when
the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to
an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential
extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA
collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled
for May."

Let me share with you some background information regarding this
development.

A. On 18 Dec 2011, I sent the following message to Dr D. Autiero, the
corresponding author of the CERN paper.
{Reference subject paper and reference [40] thesis titled,

"Neutrino velocity measurement with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS
beam"

Dear Dr Autiero,
Keeping in view the immense significance of your subject paper,
currently under review for publication in JHEP, kindly permit me to
bring some critical observations to your notice for improving the
content and quality of the said paper.

1. With reference to section 7. Data analysis (pp 16), "The data
analysis was performed blindly by deliberately assuming the setup
configuration of 2006."
The details of the assumed 'setup configuration of 2006' are not
available anywhere. Kindly provide these details.

2. With reference to section 8. Final results (pp24), "The 353 ns
relative to the 2006 calibration assume the relative synchronization
of the CERN and LNGS GPS systems prior to the installation of the two
high-accuracy systems operating in common-view mode."
The -353 ns correction relative to 2006 calibration appears to
be an ad-hoc figure which directly influences the final result of the
experiment. There is no justification or basis provided in the paper
for assuming it in the blind analysis conducted in 2011. Further, as

reported in reference [40], section 5.3 (pp 94), the two GPS receivers
were brought to one location in 2006 to compare their performance in

close-by position. The measurement showed that there was an offset of
355 ns between the two clocks which was attributed to uncompensated
internal and antenna delays on the LNGS clock. After correcting for

the uncompensated delays, the relative synchronization error between

the two clocks was brought within 23 ns. In a new calibration campaign

in July 2007, with a portable primary standard Cs4000 atomic clock,
the synchronization mismatch between CERN and LNGS was found to be
about 424 ns. "The phase of the Cs4000 had been measured with respect
to the XL-DC before leaving CERN and it was measured again with
respect to Clock2 once arrived at LNGS. The two phases were within 424
ns." This was an important result showing an absolute synchronization
mismatch of 424 ns between two GPS receivers located at the ends of

the baseline, which needed to be discussed in some detail. The crucial
point is that how could the two GPS receivers providing system UTC
time, with known accuracy level of about 100 ns, show the

synchronization mismatch of more than 400 ns?

3. Apparently in view of such high synchronization mismatch between
two old GPS receivers, two new PolaRx2e GPS receivers with Cs4000
clocks were installed to correct continuously the erratic behavior of
the two old GPS systems, so as to achieve an accuracy of 1 ns in the
mutual synchronization of clocks at the two ends. However, figure 9.1
of the reference [40] shows that the OPERA event times are still being
corrected for the synchronization mismatch of the order of -240 ns
between CERN and LNGS. Such high order of synchronization mismatch,
with fluctuations of about 60 ns, needs to be discussed and justified
in the paper. Further, this synchronization mismatch between two
PolaRx2e GPS receivers at CERN and LNGS must be cross-checked through
absolute calibration with a portable primary standard Cs4000 atomic
clock, as was done in July 2007. If this absolute synchronization
mismatch between the two system times is still found to be of the
order of 300 or 400 ns then the integrity of the final result of the
subject experiment must be questioned.

4. The system UTC time at CERN and LNGS continues to be provided by
two standard GPS receivers, fitted with Rubidium clocks, with an
overall accuracy of about 100 ns. However, the induction of additional
high accuracy PolaRx2e GPS receivers with Cesium clock (for providing
synchronization corrections), cannot be expected to improve the
overall accuracy of system time measurements. For example, if a system
time of t±100 ns is corrected with a precision synchronization
correction of dt±1 ns, the corrected value of (t+dt) will still have
an overall accuracy of the order of ±100 ns. Then how come, by still
using the old GPS receivers to provide system UTC time at CERN and
LNGS with an accuracy of ±100 ns, the final result of the experiment
is declared with an accuracy within 10 ns?

You are requested to kindly review/revise your paper in the light of
above observations and if possible you may share your views with me.}

B. On 07 Feb 2012, I sent a separate message to relevant authorities
of CERN, including Dr. D. Autiero, forwarding a preprint copy of my
paper titled "Neutrino Speed Anomaly and the Absolute Motion".
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Neutrino_anomaly_WS2.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

In this message I had stressed the following points:

1. In July 2007, the synchronization mismatch between CERN and LNGS
was found to be about 424 ns with a portable primary standard Cs4000
atomic clock. This measured synchronization mismatch, with diurnal
variations, between the two GPS receivers presented first solid
evidence of Sagnac effect associated with absolute motion which could
not be analyzed or explained in the CERN paper.

2. In 2008, two new PolaRx2e GPS receivers, with Cesium (Cs) clocks,
were installed as additional systems at CERN and LNGS to correct the
purported erratic behavior of the two old GPS systems. However, as
shown at Fig. 9.1 of the Ref. 4, the OPERA event times are being
corrected for the synchronization mismatch of the order of - 240 ns
between CERN and LNGS. Such an high order of mismatch between the UTC
times at CERN and LNGS, with diurnal fluctuations of about 60 ns,
presented second solid evidence of Sagnac effect associated with
absolute motion which could not be analyzed or explained in the CERN
paper.

3. When two clocks A and B are synchronized through a GPS satellite in
common view, the Sagnac effect of absolute motion of the baseline AB
induces a full e-synchronization between the clocks. If U_ab is the
component of absolute velocity along the line segment AB, the
synchronization time offset between the two clocks is such that the
leading end clock (B) lags behind the trailing end clock (A) by an
amount D.U_ab/c^2.

4. The neutrino speed anomaly is the combined result of:
a. Sagnac effect of absolute motion, both on GPS clock
synchronization as well as on neutrino flight time.
b. Partial e-synchronization of CERN and LNGS clocks through all in
view GPS satellites.

5. The Sagnac effect of absolute motion may be practically
demonstrated through quantitative measurements of time offsets induced

by GPS synchronization of clocks in common view mode. For this
purpose, the PolaRx2e geodetic GPS receivers, along with Cs clocks,

can be delinked from the CERN and LNGS system networks and

independently set to synchronize with the GPS system time through a
common satellite in view. After the Cs clocks of the PolaRx2e
receivers are synchronized and locked to the GPS time at both ends of
the baseline, their mutual synchronization mismatch can be measured
with a portable precision atomic clock such as Symmetricom’s SA.45s

CSAC. The difference between these offset readings at CERN and LNGS
will provide the absolute synchronization offset between CERN and LNGS
which is expected to be of the order of about 800 to 1000 ns.

6. Detection of absolute motion through measurement of
synchronization mismatch between the GPS synchronized Cs clocks at
CERN and LNGS will therefore invalidate the second postulate of SR.

From the foregoing it appears that the CERN authorities have
initiated 'damage control operations' but are still not mentally
prepared to conduct the simplest possible timing check listed at point
5. above for fear of shattering Relativity permanently.

[Dono.]

On Feb 25, 8:18 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> A. On 18 Dec 2011, I sent the following message to Dr D. Autiero, the
> corresponding author of the CERN paper.

Gurcharn,

No one gives a shit about your crackpot messages.

[GSS]

On Feb 25, 9:18 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> With reference to the CERN collaboration paper titled, "Measurement of
> the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"
> On 23 Feb 2012, CERN authorities released the following statement:

> "The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host
> laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could
> have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both
> require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one
> would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would
> diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to
> provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to
> an overestimate of the neutrino’s time of flight. The second concerns
> the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the
> OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when
> the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to
> an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential
> extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA
> collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled
> for May."
>

Prima facie the CERN statement does not appear to be plausible. What
made them suspect the timing oscillator and optical fibre connector
long long after completing relevant measurements spread over a period
of about three years?

On page 9 of the CERN paper it has been emphatically stated:
"in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-
transfer applications Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-
view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were
installed at CERN and LNGS"
"The two systems feature a technology routinely used for high-
accuracy time-transfer applications by national time and frequency
metrology laboratories around the world, in order to compare atomic
clocks [20]."
"The two systems were calibrated in 2008 by the Federal Swiss
Metrology Institute METAS (Bundesamt für Metrologie) [21] and
established a permanent time link at the 2 ns level between two
reference points (t_CERN and t_LNGS) of the timing chains at CERN and
OPERA."
"This time link was independently verified in 2011 by the Federal
German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt)
[22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer
device commonly employed for relative time link calibrations [23]. The
difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e
receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]."

There is absolutely no reason to suspect these calibration results at
this late stage unless the CERN team is under immense pressure to
retract from their declared results. If they want to wriggle out this
unpleasant 'neutrino speed anomaly', it is really not very difficult.
All they need to do is to stop taking averaged data from ALL
satellites in view and use data from only ONE satellite in common view
at any time. The end result will be that the measured neutrino speed
will come out to be equal to c within statistical limits.

On the other hand if the CERN team is interested in doing science,
they need to concentrate on the measurement of synchronization
mismatch or time offset between the CERN and LNGS GPS receiver clocks,
just as they had done in July 2007. Real science is involved in
explaining high order of the synchronization mismatch or timing offset
between the GPS synchronized clocks at CERN and LNGS ends. For this
they actually don't need to run the proton or neutrino beams.

GSS

[Dono.]

On Feb 26, 7:13 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Prima facie the CERN statement does not appear to be plausible. What
> made them suspect the timing oscillator and optical fibre connector

No one gives a shit what acrank like you thinks, Gurcharn

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/26/12 2/26/12 9:13 AM, GSS wrote:
> There is absolutely no reason to suspect these calibration results at
> this late stage unless the CERN team is under immense pressure to
> retract from their declared results.

Obviously you have NO IDEA how complicated their beam, detector, and timing
chain actually are. Nor about how complex are the inner workings of such a large
collaboration of physicists.

I am familiar with similar experiments, and understand how complex it is to
debug such a system.

If your claim were true, that they are "under immense (political) pressure" to
get a desired result, they would NEVER have published in the first place, until
they were completely satisfied with the accuracy of their result. Instead, AS
THEY SAID they published a remarkable result without "dotting every i and
crossing every t", because they felt the result was so INTERESTING that they
wanted others to examine in. Now they have found an "undotted i" and an
"uncrossed t", and they believe this has the possibility to negate their earlier
result.

Yes, in retrospect it would have been better for them to have held off
publication for a few months. But I cannot fault them for what they did.

Note this is not over, yet. This won't be resolved until they publish definitive
results, and until OTHER EXPERIMENTS publish also relevant results (particularly
MINOS).


Tom Roberts

[GSS]

In general terms, what you say is OK.

But in the present OPERA case there appears to be much more than what
meets the eye.
Consider their statements,

"The two systems were calibrated in 2008 by the Federal Swiss
Metrology Institute METAS (Bundesamt für Metrologie) [21] and
established a permanent time link at the 2 ns level between two
reference points (t_CERN and t_LNGS) of the timing chains at CERN and
OPERA."
"This time link was independently verified in 2011 by the Federal
German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt)
[22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer
device commonly employed for relative time link calibrations [23]. The
difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e
receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]."

All components of their timing system were properly calibrated by the
expert agencies in the field, first in 2008 before the commencement of
data acquisition and then again in 2011 after the completion of data
acquisition. At this stage the OPERA team can start suspecting the
performance of some timing oscillator or fiber optic cable only if
they reject the relevant calibration reports of the expert agencies.
And if they reject the calibration reports of the data acquisition
period (2009-2011), then they lose the integrity and credibility of
their entire data. Do they want to start from a scratch - all over
again?

On the other hand, what I consider as more probable is that the
abnormally high values of GPS synchronization mismatch between CERN
and LNGS (what you considered as worrisome) have started haunting
them. Since they have no theoretical explanation for such a mismatch,
they found it expedient to suspect the oscillator and the cable
without really bothering about the calibration reports. This may lead
them nowhere.

Don't you think the OPERA team must start seeking theoretical
explanations for the abnormal synchronization offsets between CERN and
LNGS GPS receiver clocks?

GSS

[Dono.]

On Feb 27, 9:33 am,EXTREME CRANK Gurcharn Sandhu

<gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, what I consider as more probable is that the
> abnormally high values of GPS synchronization mismatch between CERN
> and LNGS (what you considered as worrisome) have started haunting
> them.
>

> ASS

Gurcharn,

No one gives a shit about what a crank like you thinks.

[GSS]

On Monday, February 27, 2012 11:03:39 PM UTC+5:30, GSS wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 2/26/12 2/26/12   9:13 AM, GSS wrote:
> >
> > > There is absolutely no reason to suspect these calibration results at
> > > this late stage unless the CERN team is under immense pressure to
> > > retract from their declared results.
> >

...

The CERN and OPERA collaborations are under moral obligation to the scientific community to provide a detailed explanation for the flip-flop on neutrino results. Unless they do so convincingly, they will lose their credibility as an expert and reliable experimental agency and risk a question mark on all their past and future results. Their collaborating nations and funding agencies are bound to take note of that sooner or later.

At this stage it is not enough to sack a few individuals and conduct a fresh experiment to show that every thing is now hunky-dory and the results are OK. They are duty bound to explain as to what exactly went wrong with the neutrino timing data of past three years, when all components of their timing system were properly calibrated by the expert agencies in the field, first in 2008 before the commencement of data acquisition and then again in 2011 after the completion of data acquisition.

As I had pointed out from the very beginning (and informed CERN authorities), the neutrino timing data did not really represent FTL neutrino velocity, but represented (as a proverbial tip of the iceberg) a crucial mismatch or synchronization offsets between GPS synchronized CERN and LNGS clocks. This mismatch is attributed to the Sagnac effect of absolute motion. I had requested for a comprehensive check of the absolute mismatch between the GPS synchronized clocks at the two sites with a portable Cs atomic clock. I had also shown that measurement of this mismatch can be correlated with the absolute motion of earth and lead to invalidation of Relativity. I suspect that the OPERA team leaders who have now been forced to resign, might have been convinced and willing to conduct such absolute timing checks of the synchronization offsets between CERN and LNGS clocks. But obviously, majority of the OPERA and CERN team members would hate to question the validity of Relativity.

However, real science is involved in measuring and explaining the absolute synchronization offsets between GPS synchronized clocks at CERN and LNGS. But the CERN and OPERA collaborations now appear to be interested in just showing a repeat test that gives neutrino velocities comparable with the speed of light and close the chapter.

GSS