According to Einstein, moving clocks run slow (SR), and elevated clocks run fast (GR)

[Richard Hertz]

It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
clocks, etc.)

[Dono.]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:05:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> clocks, etc.)

How do you know, Dick? Have you tried?

[J. J. Lodder]

He could be his own clock, and start living on top of a mountain.
Good for him. He could produce more nonsense faster, up there,

Jan

[patdolan]

These two claims have been demonstrated countless times in countless posts in this forum. But I'm sure Richard will not leave us hanging. He will certainly have more to type on each.

Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.

[Richard Hertz]

Not now, Pat. Only about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT that (allegedly) the IMBECILE said.

Einstein: "Time run faster with increasing height".
Newton: "Time run SLOWER with increasing height".

Newton's based pendulum clock: T = 1/2π √(L/g) = √[L/(4π²GMₑ)] . √(Rₑ+h) = Cₑ √(Rₑ+h)

So, a Newton's based pendulum run SLOWER with height h, not faster.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Not now, Pat. Only about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT that (allegedly) the IMBECILE said.
>
> Einstein: "Time run faster with increasing height".
> Newton: "Time run SLOWER with increasing height".
>
> Newton's based pendulum clock: T = 1/2π √(L/g) = √[L/(4π²GMₑ)] . √(Rₑ+h) = Cₑ √(Rₑ+h)
>
> So, a Newton's based pendulum run SLOWER with height h, not faster.

Also, valid for sand clocks, water clocks, vertical spring clocks, etc.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:39:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:07:29 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 10:19:02 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:05:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> > > > clocks, etc.)
> > > How do you know, Dick? Have you tried?
> > These two claims have been demonstrated countless times in countless posts in this forum. But I'm sure Richard will not leave us hanging. He will certainly have more to type on each.
> >
> > Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.
> Not now, Pat.

Kookfight

[Dono.]

Kookfight

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The atoms in a cesium beam clock at sea level travel
in a parabolic trajectory from the emitter to the detector.
https://tinyurl.com/3jc9askc
The atoms traveling along this trajectory are in free-fall,
therefore weightless. So do you mean that cesium beam
clocks at sea level run faster than cesium beam clocks
at sea level?

[patdolan]

I agree with this. The contravariant behavior of mechanical and electromagnetic clocks further demonstrates the contention that the actual flow of time is independent of the both the type of device that measures it and the gravitational circumstance in which it is measured.

[patdolan]

Electrons in the wires of electric wall clocks are subject to the same forces. And they don't run faster either. We must subject the *entire* clock to further analysis, and not cherry pick particular components of it, to find out what is going on.

[J. J. Lodder]

patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:34:48 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail:

The whole idea of analysing the action of gravity on clocks
is thoroughly misguided..

It is time itself that is faster or slower,
depending on where you are, and how you go,

Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/3/23 7:05 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals,
> water clocks, etc.)

How could you possibly "know" this? -- None of those types of clocks
have sufficient accuracy and stability to show the predicted
relativistic effects.

> about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT

How silly. You forgot that for a "pendulum clock", the earth is part of
the timekeeping mechanism. Moving the pendulum relative to the earth
CHANGES THE CLOCK CALIBRATION, which is vastly larger than the
relativistic effects.

Ditto for sand clocks, water clocks, vertical spring clocks, etc. -- the
earth is part of the timekeeping mechanism.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> How could you possibly "know" this? -- None of those types of clocks
> have sufficient accuracy and stability to show the predicted relativistic effects.

<snip>

Einstein didn't know what an atom was, nor he had imagined atomic clocks, hyperfine transitions
in cesium, rubidium, etc. Hell, he didn't even know what a nanosecond was nor he didn't know that
digital electronics was coming to help physicists to theorize even more stupid things in the next 100 years.

And, above all, he didn't care. He didn't give a shit about real physics, and lived to push his agenda by
using INCREDIBLE AMOUNTS OF PR, publicity and showmanship.

He wanted MONEY (first) and FAME (second). But he had to paid dearly to his PATRONS. It costed him two or
three heart attacks between 1917 and 1929.

All because from the depths of electrodynamics THE TRUE ESSENCE OF NATURE was allegedly decoded? By using
ray of light, mirrors, ghost observers and gullible IDIOTS as his audience? "Physicists" looking for new fields to gain
fame, because newtonian physics was almost complete? GTFO.

[patdolan]

And in an analogous way, the earth and its Newtonian gravity becomes part of the timekeeping mechanism of an atomic clock when that clock experiences the earth's or an other object's gravity. What proof do you have against this claim?

[patdolan]

How can we make this claim? Because of the empirical fact that an atomic clock runs slower on the surface of the earth than it does in free fall above the earth. So naturally the simplest explanation is that gravity is affecting the rate of the clock in an as yet unexplained way. To conclude that time has somehow slowed down at the surface of the earth just because the atomic clock is experiencing gravity is as silly as to conclude that time has slowed down on the surface of the moon because it takes longer for the sand grains to drain from the hourglass.

[Richard Hertz]

To complement what Pat wrote, this link and excerpt show how this topic is understood 55 years after the P&R experiment. Also
shows HOW many years after an event (PR), the interpretation changed to:

1) Newton's is right, Einstein is not.
2) P&R proved the third prediction made by Einstein prior to "his" 1915 GR: That gravity produces red-shifting of light.

Read it, and enjoy or cry, depending on which side you are.

What were the findings of the Pound-Rebka Experiment?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362002/what-were-the-findings-of-the-pound-rebka-experiment

***** EXCERPT ********************

The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the velocity difference (acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation (pdf): "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."

That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies is so obvious that many scientists confirm the fact and so inadvertently disprove Einstein's relativity:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
******************************************************

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

There is *NO* correlation between g-force and atomic
clock run rate. The correlation is between gravitational
*POTENTIAL* and run rate. On the other hand, water clocks,
sand clocks, and pendulum clocks are dependent on
*g-force* and not gravitational potential.

[Richard Hertz]

This person doesn't agree with you.

***********
Pound-Rebka Experiment re-analysed
July 2022. Authors: Michael Schmiechen

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361440057_Pound-Rebka_Experiment_re-analysed

"In terms of the rational theory of gravity, i. e. in terms of Newton's gravity law implying the existence of aether, the result of th experiment looks rather trivial and is definitely not confirming Einstein's general theory. Thus evidently the whole literature on the experiment is obsolete".
***********

Read the paper. It is short and funny, but makes you think. Compares P&R experiment with pendulum clocks.

[patdolan]

Prokary, you crazy fool. Clocks aboard the low orbit spacelab and Gemini capsules had the exact same correction as 22,000 mile high GPS birds. Same for the Voyagers and other deep space probes.

[patdolan]

Don't believe me? Then put an atomic clock on the Vomit Comet and check.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

You are a totally incompetent liar.
The Gemini capsules did not carry atomic clocks.
Neither do the Voyager spacecraft.
The Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space experiment,
long planned, has never actually lifted to the ISS.

On the following figure, I plotted all the space-bourne
atomic clock data for which I have published figures,
with a disclaimer for ISS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png
| "The point for 'GPS' has been firmly confirmed by decades
| of measurement, both by satellites of the U.S. Global
| Positioning System as well as by the satellites of the
| Russian GLONASS and European Galileo systems in
| similar orbits. Geosynchronous time dilation has been
| firmly confirmed by the Chinese Beidou and the Indian
| Regional Satellite Systems, which use geostationary
| satellites to improve accuracy above their respective
| countries. Also included are the measurement at peak
| altitude of the 1976 Gravity Probe A experiment, which
| measured time dilation effects throughout most of its
| nearly vertical trajectory, and 2021 results from the Deep
| Space Atomic Clock mission. Time dilation for the ISS
| (which has orbited at various altitudes, hence the
| elongated mark) has not yet been confirmed by actual
| measurement, but this should change with the launching
| of the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space (ACES) mission."

[Volney]

Researchgate isn't a peer reviewed journal. Wikipedia describes it as a
social media site.
>

[Volney]

A pendulum clock depends on a local g (gravitational acceleration) to be
a certain value to work correctly. The gravitating source is part of the
clock. A pendulum clock on the moon (with a different local g) will run
at a different rate. A pendulum clock in deep space will not work at
all, since the local gravitational source is missing. (will you claim
time doesn't pass at all in deep space?) A pendulum clock won't work
correctly if upside down or sideways, its gravity component must be
"installed" correctly. It is part of the clock.

Meanwhile, the GR time dilation is related to the gravitational
POTENTIAL at its location, not the gravitational acceleration. Do you
even understand what the difference is? I didn't think so.

A spring clock depends on the force of the spring, not gravity. It will
work in deep space or on the moon. In theory a spring clock will show
GR time dilation, but you'll never be able to make a spring clock
accurate enough to show the tiny GR time dilation.

I don't know of hourglasses or water clocks but they certainly depend on
local g to work correctly, just like a pendulum clock. So same argument
applies to them.

[whodat]

All functioning clocks should be considered averaging devices.

[Dono.]

Perls before the two pigs (Pat Dolan and Richard Hertz)

[patdolan]

Oh yeah, Dono! What about Volrony confusing the wave EM wave cavity expression with the free wave expression???

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip usual Molroney shit>

> Meanwhile, the GR time dilation is related to the gravitational
> POTENTIAL at its location, not the gravitational acceleration. Do you
> even understand what the difference is? I didn't think so.

TELL IT TO YOUR PAGAN GOD. HE REPLACED ONE FOR THE OTHER WITHOUT SHAME.
YOU SHOULD MEMORIZE THE 1911 PAPER, THE ONLY ONE THE CRETIN WROTE BY HIMSELF,
NOT STEALING, PLAGIARIZING OR USURPING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK, EXCEPT THE VON SOLDNER PART.

AND, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PAPER LOOKS LIKE WRITTEN BY A BABBLING IMBECILE.


<snip more usual Molroney shit>

> I don't know of hourglasses or water clocks but they certainly depend on
> local g to work correctly, just like a pendulum clock. So same argument
> applies to them.

WATER CLOCKS DON'T EXIST, FUCKING RETARDED. I INVENTED IT JUST TO TROLL TOM (AND NOW YOU).

[Python]

They do: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clepsidra

You're not going well Richard, these days... right?

[Richard Hertz]

I was trolling Molroney, to see him jump. Why the fuck did you meddle into this?

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 5:22:59 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> WATER CLOCKS DON'T EXIST, FUCKING RETARDED. I INVENTED IT JUST TO TROLL TOM (AND NOW YOU).

You are eating shit, Dick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock
Once again.

[Richard Hertz]

What are you? Molroney attorney?

Read my reply to Python, asshole.

[Dono.]

I simply pointed out that you are eating shit, Dick <shrug>

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:22:59 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip usual Molroney shit>

> > local g to work correctly, just like a pendulum clock. So same argument
> > applies to them.
> WATER CLOCKS DON'T EXIST, FUCKING RETARDED. I INVENTED IT JUST TO TROLL TOM (AND NOW YOU).

Water clocks certainly do exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 12:31:51 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:05:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> > > clocks, etc.)
> > How do you know, Dick? Have you tried?

> He could be his own clock, and start living on top of a mountain.
> Good for him. He could produce more nonsense faster, up there,

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 00:44:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/4/2023 7:39 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:07:29 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 10:19:02 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:05:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>> It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> >>>> clocks, etc.)
> >>> How do you know, Dick? Have you tried?
> >> These two claims have been demonstrated countless times in countless posts in this forum. But I'm sure Richard will not leave us hanging. He will certainly have more to type on each.
> >>
> >> Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.
> >
> > Not now, Pat. Only about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT that (allegedly) the IMBECILE said.
> >
> > Einstein: "Time run faster with increasing height".
> > Newton: "Time run SLOWER with increasing height".
> >
> > Newton's based pendulum clock: T = 1/2π √(L/g) = √[L/(4π²GMₑ)] . √(Rₑ+h) = Cₑ √(Rₑ+h)
> >
> > So, a Newton's based pendulum run SLOWER with height h, not faster.
> A pendulum clock depends on a local g (gravitational acceleration) to be
> a certain value to work correctly. The gravitating source is part of the
> clock. A pendulum clock on the moon (with a different local g) will run
> at a different rate. A pendulum clock in deep space will not work at
> all, since the local gravitational source is missing. (will you claim
> time doesn't pass at all in deep space?) A pendulum clock won't work
> correctly if upside down or sideways, its gravity component must be
> "installed" correctly. It is part of the clock.
>
> Meanwhile, the GR time dilation is related to the gravitational

And your ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

[J. J. Lodder]

There is also a rate difference between free falling clocks
at different altitudes. (for example GPS and Galileo sats)

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

What a pity that your idiot guru and his Holiest
Postulate claimed there can be no.

[patdolan]

No there isn't. Prove me wrong.

[Volney]

Probably because you lied (again), Richard. Why do you lie?

[Volney]

On 2/4/2023 8:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip usual Molroney shit>
>
>> Meanwhile, the GR time dilation is related to the gravitational
>> POTENTIAL at its location, not the gravitational acceleration. Do you
>> even understand what the difference is? I didn't think so.
>
> TELL IT TO YOUR PAGAN GOD.

I don't have any pagan gods.

> HE

From your previous nonsense, I assume you mean Einstein, not some pagan
god.

> REPLACED ONE FOR THE OTHER WITHOUT SHAME.

Nope. They don't even have the same units. One has units of acceleration
while the other has units of energy per unit mass. Can you figure which
is which?

> YOU SHOULD MEMORIZE THE 1911 PAPER,

Why not the 1915 paper, which is the one which scientists use?

> AND, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PAPER LOOKS LIKE WRITTEN BY A BABBLING IMBECILE.

You look like a babbling imbecile. Probably because you are one.

>> I don't know of hourglasses or water clocks but they certainly depend on
>> local g to work correctly, just like a pendulum clock. So same argument
>> applies to them.
>
> WATER CLOCKS DON'T EXIST, FUCKING RETARDED. I INVENTED IT JUST TO TROLL TOM (AND NOW YOU).

You say they do, then say they don't, then admit they do, and you try to
save face by claiming to be 'trolling'. Sorry, but nobody's being
fooled, other than yourself and perhaps your yes-man, Pat Dolan.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Schmiechen agrees that the period of a pendulum clock is
dependent on gravitational *acceleration* whereas the
frequency variation found by Pound and Rebka is dependent
on the difference in gravitational *potential*.

His conclusion that Pound and Rebka does not serve to
distinguish general relativity from Newton's theory is nothing
new. As I've written before, "...the theoretical arguments predicting
gravitational time dilation do not depend on the details of
general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity will predict
gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
equivalence.  This includes Newtonian gravitation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Curvature_of_time
The current article section is only about 5% changed from
the original version that I wrote in June 2017, most of the
differences being my own correction of an historical inaccuracy.

[Maciej Wozniak]

The impudence of your lies is really impressing,
even for a relativist.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 1:39:44 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:07:29 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 10:19:02 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:

> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:05:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> > > > clocks, etc.)

> > > How do you know, Dick? Have you tried?
> > These two claims have been demonstrated countless times in countless posts in this forum. But I'm sure Richard will not leave us hanging. He will certainly have more to type on each.
> >
> > Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.
> Not now, Pat. Only about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT that (allegedly) the IMBECILE said.

What imbecile? Who are you talking about? Einstein? And why in all caps? OK,
guy, you have a major emotional problem bordering on something psychiatric.

> Einstein: "Time run faster with increasing height".
> Newton: "Time run SLOWER with increasing height".

Get off this subject, it does nothing good to your brain. Is there something
else you could get interested in? This one is running you mad.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

As I wrote somewhere else,

- A messiah for you.
- An IMBECILE for me, and I refrain myself this time.

Keep going with you PLC programming, cretin.

[Dono.]

> - An IMBECILE like me, and I refrain myself this time.
>
Yep

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 04.02.2023 13:07, skrev patdolan:
>
> Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.

Empirically?
Can you refer to an experiment that confirms this?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 04.02.2023 23:24, skrev patdolan:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> Prokary, you crazy fool. Clocks aboard the low orbit spacelab and Gemini capsules had the exact same correction as 22,000 mile high GPS birds. Same for the Voyagers and other deep space probes.

> Don't believe me? Then put an atomic clock on the Vomit Comet and check.

The reality:

https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[patdolan]

Yes Paul, you have indeed uncovered the reality of the situation. Nearly the same reality that Richard unmasked in Pound-Rebka. Cooking, Fudging and the other one (which I forget). Useless data in terms of proving anything about anything. High tech cherry picking. Doing 500 seconds e0-g measurements after a sustained 18-g boost!!! This is why relativity remains the most unconfirmed theory to ever grace university course catalogs. Disgusting.

[patdolan]

Can you refer to three experiments that falsify it?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Simple.
Clocks in free fall "click" at different rates depending on
gravitational potential, even though Newtonian gravity
is identical at zero G.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time_Dilation_vs_Orbital_Height.png

[patdolan]

Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.

[Dono.]

The odds are zero, Richard is as stupid at internet sleuthing as he is at science.
BTW, you have your head very deep up his ass, must be very uncomfortable for both of you.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 01:27:37 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 6:01:59 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 10:55:41 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 04.02.2023 13:07, skrev patdolan:
> > > >
> > > > Clocks in free-fall are empirically known to run slightly fast. But this is easily explained by Newtonian Gravity's effect on the material components of those elements that comprise precision electronic clocks.
> > > Empirically?
> > > Can you refer to an experiment that confirms this?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/
> > Can you refer to three experiments that falsify it?
> Simple.
> Clocks in free fall "click" at different rates depending on
> gravitational potential, even though Newtonian gravity
> is identical at zero G.

And will you also provide a quoting where
Newtonian gravity predicts the rate tol be
the same?

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 3:58:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

<snip>

> > Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.

> The odds are zero, Richard is as stupid at internet sleuthing as he is at science.
> BTW, you have your head very deep up his ass, must be very uncomfortable for both of you.

Adrian sa_ge Dono, it doesn't take a genius sleuth if you, mistakenly, post a file directly from your local computer,
blowing up your cover, imbecile.

[Ken Seto]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:05:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals, water
> clocks, etc.)

The problem is that Einstein assumed wrongly that a clock second is a universal interval of time........it is not. A clock second on earth is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of Cs 133 atom and a clock second on the GPS is represented by 9,192,631,774.1617 transitions of Cs133 atom.. These two different definitions for a clock second is to make them to equal to the same level of absolute time at the different locations of the clocks.
IOW, a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different locations. OTOH, all the processes of nature are run on absolute time.......that's why we observe TIME DILATION.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 9:25:19 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

> Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.

These are not "aspirations". GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, DSAC,
GP-A and so forth have all published specifications and
results supporting GR. Crackpots like you deny their
validity. Simple as that.

[Richard Hertz]

I highly doubt that you have access to Beidou specs. And the european Galileo GNSS has CLEARLY LEFT "adjustments" due to relativity
in the hands of each single manufacturer of receivers, either for commercial or industrial grade applications.

About written specs, NOTHING is more sacred than national Constitutions. And they consist in hypocritical assertions, commands
and reflections about laws and rights for the people. These vital specs are VIOLATED everywhere, 24x7 since they were written.

So, what's written worth ZERO, no matter the human/animal/vegetal fields of activities.

Now, statistically (they will say), those written specs are fulfilled, most of the time. LOL!

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:38:37 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 3:58:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.
>
> > The odds are zero, Richard is as stupid at internet sleuthing as he is at science.
> > BTW, you have your head very deep up his ass, must be very uncomfortable for both of you.

You are as stupid at internet sleuthing as you are at science, Dick. Keep it up, dumbestdfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

Aging is making a disaster in your brain, Dono, sa_ge, Adrian Sfarti.
You forget what you wrote, where did you write it and repeat yourself as a parrot.

Better go and edit your self-published book and make it more readable, with a sense of continuity,
and not a copy&paste of your 100+ publications (elsewhere) from the last 18 years, imbecile.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 7:53:07 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 12:45:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:38:37 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 3:58:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.
> > >
> > > > The odds are zero, Richard is as stupid at internet sleuthing as he is at science.
> > > > BTW, you have your head very deep up his ass, must be very uncomfortable for both of you.
> > You are as stupid at internet sleuthing as you are at science, Dick. Keep it up, dumbestdfuck!

> Aging is making a disaster in my brain

It does indeed. On the other hand, it provides up with the daily entertainment based on your imbecilities, Dick!

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 15:56:00 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> These are not "aspirations". GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, DSAC,
> GP-A and so forth have all published specifications and
> results supporting GR.

Of course - a brainwashed idiot believes that
everything is supporting his idiocy. No, it
doesn't. All of these have clocks measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Common sense was warning your idiot
guru.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:17:01 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:56:00 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 9:25:19 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > Prokary, the rumor is that you are a distinguished man of science, familiar with the experimental design, execution and data capture. Yet you send me a graph your relativist's aspirations instead of hard data. Be careful, lest Richard Hertz assigns you a Dono number too.
> > These are not "aspirations". GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, DSAC,
> > GP-A and so forth have all published specifications and
> > results supporting GR. Crackpots like you deny their
> > validity. Simple as that.
> I highly doubt that you have access to Beidou specs. And the european Galileo GNSS has CLEARLY LEFT "adjustments" due to relativity
> in the hands of each single manufacturer of receivers, either for commercial or industrial grade applications.

You'll find information about the Beidou system in various
documents both in front of and behind paywalls. I don't have
time to chase down the exact reference that I used for my diagram,
but here are a couple of starters for you to look at.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/navi.294
https://satellite-navigation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43020-021-00044-0

Galileo (and other GNSS systems) have usually (but not always) left the
relativistic corrections for orbital *ECCENTRICITY* to the receiver
manufacturers. (In GLONASS, I believe that the eccentricity correction is in
the broadcast signal.) The latest generation GNSS systems do not specify an
*OVERALL* satellite offset because they fine tune the relativistic frequency
offsets to the exact amount necessary for the particular orbit of each
satellite. It is a waste of maneuvering fuel to move the satellites in
response to their being pushed around by solar wind or traveling over
irregularities in global mass distribution etc. so they instead compensate in
software. Unlike the earliest generation GPS satellites, which used dual
divisor digital PLL frequency synthesizers that could not be fine tuned and
whose fixed frequency offset was therefore published in the Interface Control
Documents, current frequency synthesizers are tunable and Galileo (and
other GNSS systems including GPS) fine tune their outputs for maximum
accuracy.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Contractile curvature inner space reaches outer space gravity boundary.
Equal strength gravity for the whole Earth is real. Beyond it is outer drop off strength.
Equal strength gravity field surrounds the whole Earth.
Feynman's correction of Einstein was wrong. There is no inner space drop off.
How would a BH form if its gravity strength is headed mathematically toward infinite
and zero together at the same time?


Mitchell Raemsch

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 06.02.2023 01:01, skrev patdolan:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> The reality:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

> Yes Paul, you have indeed uncovered the reality of the situation. Nearly the same reality that Richard unmasked in Pound-Rebka. Cooking, Fudging and the other one (which I forget). Useless data in terms of proving anything about anything. High tech cherry picking.

This statement doesn't really mean anything, does it?

> Doing 500 seconds e0-g measurements after a sustained 18-g boost!!!

But what does this statement mean? Let's see:

According to Newton, the speed of an object falling from
an altitude h to the ground will be:

v = √(2⋅GM⋅[1/R − 1/(R+h)])
when h = 10e6 m, R = 6371e3 m, GM = 0.39860e15 m³/s²
v ≈ 8743 m/s

This is also the initial speed the rocket must have to
reach 10,000 km.

a = 18g ≈ 177 m/s²
Duration of acceleration t = v/a ≈ 50s, not very "sustained".
The duration of the flight is slightly more than 1h 50 min

So we have a rocket accelerating for 50s and then is
inertial (free falling) for 6600s.

There is no clock which can get out of sync, it is
a H-MASER which is an oscillator with f = 1420.405751 MHz

So can you please explain what is the problem with doing
the described measurements during the 6600s of free fall
after the 50 s of acceleration?

Of course the MASER and the other equipment are built to
endure the acceleration without damage.

> This is why relativity remains the most unconfirmed theory to ever grace university course catalogs. Disgusting.
>

What is "This"? Please specify.

It is obvious that you haven't read the paper:
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

I will not ask you to specify exactly what in the paper is
"cooked" and "fudged", because I know you aren't able
to understand how the measurements are performed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[JanPB]

No, Einstein was basically a genius and there is nothing you can do about it.
Also, Einstein's relativity will stay in physics forever, just like Newton's and
Maxwell's theories. Denying the above reality is what drives you insane.

> Keep going with you PLC programming, cretin.

I don't even know what PLC programming is. Stop fantasising about
people who argue with you. This is childish.

--
Jan

[patdolan]

I will re-read it. My first read through gave me the impression that the data used to prove the proposition was collected for only 500 seconds: 250 seconds on one side of apogee and 250 seconds on the other side.

[Richard Hertz]

Let me see. If I rise a perfect atomic clock 22.2 m from ground level, and then move it around the Earth at exactly
the same height, with a constant speed of 7.5E-07 m/sec, THERE IS NO CHANGE wrt the same clock being stationary
on the ground?. Is that so?

[whodat]

You claim to know the theories regarding elevation
(gravity) and motion so why are you asking this question?
Are you uncertain about something?

The first problem always is properly defining the experiment
which is never as simple as it might superficially seem.

For example, a stationary earth that is perfectly circular
with no mountains in the path and so forth. It gets to be
a rather lengthy description if done correctly.

[Richard Hertz]

It's a connection with an old HOAX, but you didn't get it.

[Volney]

He's right, Dick. If time wasn't subject to relativistic effects, all
GNSS satellites would be forever in "Newton" mode, with their clock
permanently set to 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles per one earth second, no
matter what. No need to compensate for, or even care about, the solar
wind or earth mascons messing with their orbit. Yet the US GPS people
found out from the very first GPS prototype that the GR corrections are
necessary.

BTW you can buy off-the-shelf multichannel GNSS devices which can use
any of the active systems, GPS, Beidou, GLONASS, whatever, so the Beidou
secrets aren't too secret if you can order up a GNSS device from Amazon
which uses it. Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
from the GPS 38µS/day.

[whodat]

You're looking at this wrong. I choose not to play but my remarks
are valid in any case. Alas I'm not so certain you actually appreciate
the shortcomings of your "scenario,"

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:08:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
> for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
> from the GPS 38µS/day.

Like 0.00 µS/day.

Get a life, Einstein's parrot.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

7.5E-07 m/sec [sic] is insufficient to keep an atomic clock
in orbit at 22.2 m from the ground, so there is ***NO***
connection between your scenario and GNSS systems.
GNSS satellite clocks *DO* require relativistic frequency
offsets to maintain sync with the ground. There is *NO*
miraculous canceling out of gravitational time dilation by
SR time dilation. And your calculation is wrong anyway.

[whodat]

On 2/6/2023 11:14 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:53:35 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:36:51 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2023 4:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> Let me see. If I rise a perfect atomic clock 22.2 m from ground level, and then move it around the Earth at exactly
>>>> the same height, with a constant speed of 7.5E-07 m/sec, THERE IS NO CHANGE wrt the same clock being stationary
>>>> on the ground?. Is that so?
>>> You claim to know the theories regarding elevation
>>> (gravity) and motion so why are you asking this question?
>>> Are you uncertain about something?
>>>
>>> The first problem always is properly defining the experiment
>>> which is never as simple as it might superficially seem.
>>>
>>> For example, a stationary earth that is perfectly circular
>>> with no mountains in the path and so forth. It gets to be
>>> a rather lengthy description if done correctly.
>> It's a connection with an old HOAX, but you didn't get it.
>
> 7.5E-07 m/sec [sic] is insufficient to keep an atomic clock
> in orbit at 22.2 m from the ground, so there is ***NO***
> connection between your scenario and GNSS systems.

You seem to forget, magic is permitted.

[Volney]

On 2/7/2023 12:14 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:53:35 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:36:51 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2023 4:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> Let me see. If I rise a perfect atomic clock 22.2 m from ground level, and then move it around the Earth at exactly
>>>> the same height, with a constant speed of 7.5E-07 m/sec, THERE IS NO CHANGE wrt the same clock being stationary
>>>> on the ground?. Is that so?
>>> You claim to know the theories regarding elevation
>>> (gravity) and motion so why are you asking this question?
>>> Are you uncertain about something?
>>>
>>> The first problem always is properly defining the experiment
>>> which is never as simple as it might superficially seem.
>>>
>>> For example, a stationary earth that is perfectly circular
>>> with no mountains in the path and so forth. It gets to be
>>> a rather lengthy description if done correctly.
>> It's a connection with an old HOAX, but you didn't get it.
>
> 7.5E-07 m/sec [sic] is insufficient to keep an atomic clock
> in orbit at 22.2 m from the ground,

As is usual, Dick doesn't really know what he's talking about. His
little situation won't maintain orbit.

> There is *NO*
> miraculous canceling out of gravitational time dilation by
> SR time dilation.

There is a certain orbital altitude where SR time dilation is equal and
opposite to the gravitational time dilation. Below this altitude, the
satellite clock will appear to run slow as seen from earth, while above
it (including GPS satellites) it will appear to run fast. Didn't you
make the Wikipedia graph showing time dilation vs. orbital height? It's
where the total dilation crosses 0.

> And your calculation is wrong anyway.

Dick never disappoints us when it comes to failing.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 03:08:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> He's right, Dick. If time wasn't subject to relativistic effects, all
> GNSS satellites would be forever in "Newton" mode, with their clock
> permanently set to 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles per one earth second

No, stupid Mike. Apart of your usual nonsense of your
ISO proper time being a "Newton mode" - you're
mistaking the reason with the consequence.

The truth is - If clocks were really set to fit your
idiocies they would really fit your idiocies. It's just
not going to happen outside your gedankenwelt.

[Volney]

On 2/6/2023 10:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:08:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
>> for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
>> from the GPS 38µS/day.
>
> Like 0.00 µS/day.

They tried that in 1977, with the GPS prototype. It didn't work. They
then listened to the wisdom of Einstein and threw the magic switch, and
it worked as expected. And all was right with the world, except for the
continuous butthurt experienced by Dick Hurts, which continues to this day.

>
> Get a life, Einstein's parrot.

Get some mental health treatment, Einstein obsesser.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 08:39:56 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/6/2023 10:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:08:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
> >> for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
> >> from the GPS 38µS/day.
> >
> > Like 0.00 µS/day.
> They tried that in 1977, with the GPS prototype. It didn't work.

Of course Einstein/ISO nonsense didn't work,
common sense was warning him.

[whodat]

Bbbbbb but then he'd have nothing to talk about.

[Richard Hertz]

It's a thought experiment, like the Pound-Rebka.
I didn't do any calculations. It's on Wikipedia.

By the way, in the P&R gedanke, the exact speed to cancel Einstein's blue-shifting is an INSTANTANEOUS speed,
that happens ONLY in one instant, in the sinusoidal motion of the source.

And yet, they managed to measure EVERYTHING THAT THEY REQUIRED on such exact moment. MAGIC!

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Where?

> By the way, in the P&R gedanke, the exact speed to cancel Einstein's blue-shifting is an INSTANTANEOUS speed,
> that happens ONLY in one instant, in the sinusoidal motion of the source.

The source modulation was in the up-and-down direction, not
transversely. And your figure of 7.5E-07 m/sec is still wrong.

> And yet, they managed to measure EVERYTHING THAT THEY REQUIRED on such exact moment. MAGIC!

Not *one* exact moment. They analyzed something on the
order of 10^12 photons.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Unlike the earliest generation GPS satellites, which used dual
> divisor digital PLL frequency synthesizers that could not be fine tuned and
> whose fixed frequency offset was therefore published in the Interface Control
> Documents, current frequency synthesizers are tunable and Galileo (and
> other GNSS systems including GPS) fine tune their outputs for maximum
> accuracy.

Since Galileo uses frequency offsets fine-tuned for each
satellite, they do not publish a constant frequency-offset such
as may be found in the GPS and GLONASS Interface
Control Documents. Because of ambiguous wording, there
was a question as to whether the broadcast signals were
being corrected with a frequency offset, or if cumulative
corrections were to be performed in software for each
satellite.

I had earlier demonstrated that if cumulative offsets were
to be corrected exclusively in software, then the available
offset buffer in the signal message structure would quickly
overflow, necessitating that each satellite be reset every
couple of years. Although I had to admit that this was
feasible, this seemed rather stupid.

Paul Anderson then demonstrated conclusively by
analysis of the Galileo logs that relativistic frequency
adjustments were being performed at the satellite level,
ending all debate.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:41:30 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> Paul Anderson then demonstrated conclusively by
> analysis of the Galileo logs that relativistic frequency
> adjustments were

Paul is a lying scoundrel, just like you, and the truth
is that your moronic religion together with your ISO
is forbidding these adjustments.

[Richard Hertz]

I repeat, as you didn't care to read: I used the data from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Do yourself the corrections, if you think they are wrong.

Regarding the INSTANT at which both effects cancel, you forgot that the amount of gamma photons
hitting the detector in that instant produces several chain events, like some of them ionizing atoms and
some exciting atoms to non-ionized states that cause photons to be emitted, some photons are
registered in the scintillator, some electrons from there are amplified 30,000 times, some of the 30,000 x 1
electrons form short electric pulses in the nano-micro volts range, such pulses are amplified by "low-noise"
amplifiers, such output is integrated with a heavy filtering, such integral averaging is registered on paper,
such paper is thoroughly studied to detect hills and valleys, such study provides information along a 73 Hz
period, such information is accumulated to be averaged with long term time constants and, finally, with all
the indirect-indirect-indirect-indirect heavy data filtering, COOKING and FUDGING, datasets are COOKED
even more with "temperature corrections" averaging 80%.

Finally, after further cooking on the 14 datasets, a shift of 2.4E-15 is DETECTED from all that NOISE.

MAGIC, and "Einstein's right" proven in 1960-1965 by some cretins.

This HOAX, however, PALES IN COMPARISON with the Ives-Stillway 1938 HOAX, about time dilation found
in traverse Doppler effect. A FRAUD that inspired Dono to write NNN papers about it.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 06.02.2023 20:57, skrev patdolan:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:37:02 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.02.2023 01:01, skrev patdolan:
>>> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>

>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

Look at fig,3.
The 'predicted effect' is GR's prediction for the gravitational
frequency shift.
The 'residuals' are the difference between the measured and
the predicted gravitational frequency shift.

In the first 10 minutes, the residuals are rather large while
the system is settling down after the acceleration,
and something dramatically is happening at the time 13:50.
But during the 80 minutes between 12:00 and 13:20,
the residuals |Δf/f| < 2e-13, most of the time |Δf/f| < 1e-13.

Which means that the error most of the time is < 1e-3 of the prediction.

If you are serious about reading the paper and trying to understand
how the measurements are done, it may help to know the basic principle
of the measurements:

1:
The frequency f₀ from a maser in the rocket is sent to a receiver
on the ground. The received frequency will be both gravitational
Doppler shifted and Doppler shifted due to the speed of the rocket.

The MEASURED received frequency is:
fᵣₑ = (1 + Δf/f₀ + Δfₛ/f₀)⋅f₀
or:
(fᵣₑ/f₀ - 1) = Δfᵣₑ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + Δfₛ/f₀ (1)

where Δf/f₀ is the gravitational shift and Δfₛ/f₀ is the speed shift.

2:
The frequency f₀ from a maser on the ground is sent up to the rocket
where it is sent back (transponder) to the ground.

This signal will be gravitational red shifted on its way up , and
the signal received by the rocket will in addition be Doppler shifted
due to the speed of the rocket.

On its way down the signal will be gravitational blue shifted, and the
signal received on the ground will in addition be Doppler shifted due to
the speed of ground relative to the rocket.

The red shift of the signal on the way up will always exactly cancel
the blue shift on its way down, so the two way Doppler shift of
the signal depends only on the speed of the rocket.

The MEASURED two way Doppler shift:
f₂ = (1 + v/c)/(1 − v/c) ≈ (1 + 2v/c) when v/c << 1
or:
Δf₂/f₀ ≈ 2v/c (2)
One way Doppler shift:
Δfₛ = √((1 + v/c)/(1 − v/c)) ≈ (1 + v/c) when v/c << 1
or:
Δfₛ/f₀ = v/c = (Δf₂/f₀)/2 (3)

We have two measured values, Δfᵣₑ/f₀ (1) and Δf₂/f₀ (2).

Combining (1),(2) and (3) yields the gravitational Doppler shift:

Δf/f₀ = Δfᵣₑ/f₀ - (Δf₂/f₀)/2

The calculation above is made in true time by hardware.
See Fig. 1.

What I have not mentioned in the explanation of the basics
principle is that the frequencies must be offset so that
the tree sent frequencies (one up and two down) are different
so that the three receivers will receive the correct signal only.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 7:06:29 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Do yourself the corrections, if you think they are wrong.

Sorry, I was using the four-function calculator program
on my computer, and there was apparently a residual
value that I forgot to clear out.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> This HOAX, however, PALES IN COMPARISON with the Ives-Stillway

Riiight, "Ives-Stillway". You hit another 500 points on the crank index, Dick. Thanks for the entertainment, dumbestfuck!

[J. J. Lodder]

patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 12:09:52 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

> > > > > On 2/3/23 7:05 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > It doesn't work for mechanical clocks of any kind (pendulum, spirals
,
> > > > > > water clocks, etc.)

> > > > > How could you possibly "know" this? -- None of those types of clocks
> > > > > have sufficient accuracy and stability to show the predicted
> > > > > relativistic effects.

> > > > > > about pendulum clocks, for which gravity causes the INVERSE EFFECT

> > > > > How silly. You forgot that for a "pendulum clock", the earth is part o
f
> > > > > the timekeeping mechanism. Moving the pendulum relative to the earth
> > > > > CHANGES THE CLOCK CALIBRATION, which is vastly larger than the
> > > > > relativistic effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ditto for sand clocks, water clocks, vertical spring clocks, etc. -- t
he
> > > > > earth is part of the timekeeping mechanism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > And in an analogous way, the earth and its Newtonian gravity becomes
> > > > part of the timekeeping mechanism of an atomic clock when that clock
> > > > experiences the earth's or an other object's gravity. What proof do you
> > > > have against this claim?
> > > >
> > > How can we make this claim? Because of the empirical fact that an atomic
> > > clock runs slower on the surface of the earth than it does in free fall
> > > above the earth. So naturally the simplest explanation is that gravity
> > > is affecting the rate of the clock in an as yet unexplained way. To
> > > conclude that time has somehow slowed down at the surfafce of the earth
> > > just because the atomic clock is experiencing gravity is as silly as to
> > > conclude that time has slowed down on the surface of the moon because it
> > > takes longer for the sand grains to drain from the hourglass.
> > There is also a rate difference between free falling clocks
> > at different altitudes. (for example GPS and Galileo sats)
> >
> > Jan
> No there isn't. Prove me wrong.

Counterfactuals won't help you.
You cannot take some that suit you while ignoring others that don't fit.

And as usual: do your own homework,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI will keep
measuring t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots
old seconds.

[Volney]

On 2/6/2023 10:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

Read it and weep, Dick.

Total relativistic offset [μs per day]

GPS 38.44
Galileo 38.58
GLONASS 39.51
Beidou 39.48
IRNSS 46.49

https://www.academia.edu/29821239

[Maciej Wozniak]

For sure, the offset are as relativistic as 9 192 631 770
is newtonian, stupid Mike.

[Richard Hertz]

Imbecile, academia.edu is where losers (like Dono) publish!

This is your source? A fucking HS STUDENT?


RELEVANCE OF THE RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS IN SATELLITE NAVIGATION
Eric Kulbiej
Student, Nawigacja I r!

[RichD]

On February 7,
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

> 1: The frequency f₀ from a maser in the rocket is sent to a receiver
> on the ground. The received frequency will be both gravitational
> Doppler shifted and Doppler shifted due to the speed of the rocket.

> 2: The frequency f₀ from a maser on the ground is sent up to the rocket
> where it is sent back (transponder) to the ground.

> The red shift of the signal on the way up will always exactly cancel
> the blue shift on its way down, so the two way Doppler shift of
> the signal depends only on the speed of the rocket.

Something doesn't make sense here.

If the gravitational frequency shifts cancel on up path and down
path, and the received signals measure only the velocity Doppler
shifts, how does the experiment test general relativity effects?


--
Rich

[Richard Hertz]

The same shit that in Pound-Rebka, Ives-Stilwell and many other "experiments". Just fraudulent HOAX.

[Paul Alsing]

It only goes to prove that even a high-school student can outperform you whan it comes to doing their due-diligence... I'm pretty sure that this information is available to anypne, provided they are smart enough to locate it.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader, Dick?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/are-you-smarter-than-a-fifth-grader-prove-it

[Volney]

On 2/7/2023 2:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 2/6/2023 10:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:08:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
>>>> for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
>>>> from the GPS 38µS/day.
>>>
>>> Like 0.00 µS/day.
>>>
>>> Get a life, Einstein's parrot.
>> Read it and weep, Dick.
>>
>> Total relativistic offset [μs per day]
>>
>> GPS 38.44
>> Galileo 38.58
>> GLONASS 39.51
>> Beidou 39.48
>> IRNSS 46.49
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/29821239
>
> Imbecile, academia.edu is where losers (like Dono) publish!
>
> This is your source? A fucking HS STUDENT?

So this is the site for you and Pat Dolan to post your anti-relativity
imbecilities?

It sounds like you're envious that a HS student can greatly outperform
yourself in physics. This publication is also in other journals and even
cited a few times.

Even so, I didn't refer to this paper for anything other than a
convenient place where the GR offsets for the various GNSS systems was
listed. Do you need to be butthurt even more by better references to the
GNSS offsets?

I'll point out that you provided NO references, not even to a crank
site, for your "0.00 µS/day" claim. I will also point out yet again, the
GPS prototype tried that and it simply didn't work. It worked once it
was switched to Einstein mode, with a 38.44 µS/day offset, as predicted
by GR.

[Volney]

They compare the two downlinked frequencies to each other.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:33:25 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 2:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 2/6/2023 10:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:08:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Since the satellites are at a different orbital height
> >>>> for each GNSS system, the time offset for each GNSS will be different
> >>>> from the GPS 38µS/day.
> >>>
> >>> Like 0.00 µS/day.
> >>>
> >>> Get a life, Einstein's parrot.
> >> Read it and weep, Dick.
> >>
> >> Total relativistic offset [μs per day]
> >>
> >> GPS 38.44
> >> Galileo 38.58
> >> GLONASS 39.51
> >> Beidou 39.48
> >> IRNSS 46.49
> >>
> >> https://www.academia.edu/29821239
> >

> So this is the site for you and Pat Dolan to post your anti-relativity
> imbecilities?
>

Absolutely, it was created as a trap for cranks like Pat Dolan and Richard Hertz and for pretenders like Stephane Baune. And it is working as designed.