On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 8:18 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 5:43:34 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2021 11:38 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 4:40:23 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
And this is how a exchange of posts between an indoctrinated idiot and me (Hertz) looks like:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen 1: The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is
9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
..........................
Hertz 1: Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
Moroney 1: No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true.
It is only when comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't
possible, is when there can be a difference.
Now: You and Paul are both wrong. A definition of time, stated on a BIMP document, is in conflict with the real world.
Had you read the firsts posts here, you'd acknowledge that maintaining such statement is a chimera, because reality forces
to accept that here, on Earth, advanced countries only achieve UTC time sync with a difference in the order of ± 10 nsec. And
these is only for 14 countries or less. The rest of countries are WELL above such difference with UTC(BIMP).
..........................
Hertz 2: NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT.
Moroney 2: Yes, the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites. If they divide the Cs frequency by
9192631770 they'll get a tick at
exactly 1 second per tick, as verified by an observer. [insert whine about there's no astronaut riding a GPS satellite, the GPS specs
use "would observe" etc.] The existence of a DIFFERENT signal, dividing Cs by
9192631774.1 doesn't change that.
NOW: No! And this is a proof or your regular resort to fallacies and "straw man" arguments. If such division could be achieved (not
possible with down-scalers, because prime numbers decomposition don't provide exact multipliers), you would get a NOISY LOW
FREQUENCY MODULATED RESIDUAL: 1 sec ± ΔT(t).
ΔT(t) is random and account, mostly, for quantum noise at the conversion of MW to V(t) = Y(t) . Δf(t) at the output of the photodiode.
V(t) contains the random variations around fo in the MW region, is a complex low frequency signal which could be mathematically
related to ΔT(t). V(t) is heavily low-pass filtered and fed into the OCXO at HF, to phase-lock the output of the OCXO that feeds a digital
counter which, finally, provides TIME!.
The phase correction is done with a sub-Hertz signal, to avoid jumps into the OCXO oscillation and, then, the count of pulses.
The output of the HF OCXO signal is elevated to the MW region to feed the Ramsay cavity and excite atoms. To be sure that most
atoms be excited, such signal is frequency modulated with a LF signal (about 200 Hz), to cover the MW dispersion of transitions.
..........................
Hertz 2: And BY DEFINITION means something written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement
after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
Moroney 2: Exactly. That's why the definition of a second specifies the exact number, and that the Cs clock is local, which the theoretical
astronaut is necessary to measure a satellite's frequency. Obviously a satellite whizzing overhead by thousands of miles at high speeds
isn't exactly local!
NOW: You are digressing, playing with fallacies at the same time.
..........................
Hertz 2: So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND!
Moroney 2: Looks like your crank "cult" thinking is back.
..........................
Hertz 2: A fucking circular thought,
Moroney 2: Nope. It just means you can have a whole bunch of clocks and clock-like things, all different kinds perhaps, if they are good
clocks they ALL will tick in lockstep with the Cs clock defining the second, one second per second.
..........................
Hertz 2: but you relativists are used to such schizophrenic view of the world,
Moroney 2: There's that crank word again! Projection.
..........................
Hertz 1: This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE the most unthinkable
places, like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
Moroney 1: REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.
Hertz 2: Not a sane and decent scientist that knows that maintaining accuracy within 1 second in 25 million years is RIDICULE.
Moroney 2: Ridicule? You think scientists joke about the accuracy of atomic clocks? Regardless, many scientists need better accuracy
than the wobbly earth and they'll appreciate atomic clocks and seconds defined by them, even if you have no use for that.
NOW: NO! There is an EXCESS OF IDIOTS WHO GAINED A PHYSICS DEGREE AND ARE DESPERATE TO JUSTIFY THEIR JOBS, so they
go further and further into STUPID AND COSTLY projects, losing contact with reality increasingly as years pass by. Science and
technology have reached limits in their short career since modern instrumentation allowed their members to play.
It's the same in microelectronics, where the career to achieve lower densities (below 3 nm) is colliding with the random quantum world.
How can you control 1 Trillion transistors in 4 cm² chip, 20 atoms each, but that consumes 100 Watts? Why do they keep going, then?
Because Intel, IBM, etc., should then fire every scientist and stop the pursuit of Moore's Law for 10 years, and reorient themselves to
produce real useful chips to make a better world, instead of better smartphones or computers. TOO MANY PEOPLE WORKING THERE!
..........................
Hertz 2: Or those who don't have a clue about HOW COME they are going to correct 1 usec WITHIN THE SECONDS ELAPSED IN ONE YEAR!
Moroney 2: Because good old Planet Earth is wobbly.
NOW: Moroney in full colors. Has to write something, no matter what.
..........................
Hertz 1: And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.
Moroney 1: Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form was the 1915 paper, plus followons.
NOW: I'm not obsessed with 1911 (2a) formula. You are one of many to defend 1915 GR no matter what, even if it costs your soul.
1911 (2a) formula: Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) , for gravitational shift.
2015 GR formula at its finest: Δf/f = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) . (1 + J2/2) , for gravitational shift. (Mudrak et. all). Sound familiar?
Considering that J2/2 = 0.0005413134 and can be discarded in first approximation, it results that formulae from 1911 and 2015 are equal.
..........................
Hertz 2: BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: Use what's derived from the 1915 paper, the 1911 paper wasn't ready for prime time.
NOW: Read above, idiot.
..........................
Hertz 1: And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
Moroney 1: They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency generators). Astronomers do it all the time.
NOW: Inventing stuff. Anything is possible in Moroney's world, as long as the doctrine for retarded relativists is preserved from truth.
..........................
Hertz 2: AGAIN: THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: And...? A formula is correct or incorrect, not "idiotic" or "stupid". If you think it's incorrect, prove it. But since the GPS, GNSS,
etc. use it AND THEY WORK, it sure looks like that "idiotic" formula is correct!
NOW: A formula can be WRONG AND IDIOTIC, as the one making mc²=hf (de Broglie 1921 and many other fuckers). Then, he changed
his thesis topic in 1922 to undulatory particles (no mass for light, then).
..........................
Hertz 1: I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Moroney 1: Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!
NOW: I'm good at that. For instance, I decode that you are an idiot with idiotic purposes in life.
..........................
Hertz 2: If you poke your nose in "not your business" comment, addressed to Paul, you come out looking as an imbecile.
Moroney 2: Nope. Usenet is public postings. Anyone who cares can see and comment on anything you post. If it's "not my business",
send it to Paul via email. Would you print private love letters to your sweetheart in the newspaper and demand that nobody read that newspaper? Also the fact remains. You do an awful job at interpreting other peoples' purposes and actions.
NOW: I'm good at that. You use every tool in your toolbox to distort or change comments from others at this site. But you suck being
a sophist and using fallacies and derogatory comments, as Bodkin and JanPB do. At least the other retarded, Dono, is quite direct.
..........................