Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616592 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-02 00:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-04 12:26 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 00:49 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 13:56 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-02 15:03 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 15:08 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 15:17 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 16:16 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 19:12 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 23:29 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 06:05 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:46 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 08:17 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:28 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:37 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:15 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:20 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 13:46 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:20 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 17:57 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:21 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:51 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 13:27 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 21:18 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 23:48 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:05 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-04 11:47 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:59 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 15:53 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 12:56 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 13:07 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 22:54 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-04 22:46 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:28 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Vidal Barabashev <dlva@vvhivdbs.ab> - 2023-08-05 17:50 +0000
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:53 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-04 11:54 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 13:01 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 13:43 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:12 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 15:41 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 12:52 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-04 13:03 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 23:28 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:42 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 15:02 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 19:20 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-05 16:54 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 18:14 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 23:24 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:42 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-06 21:22 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 22:35 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Dillan Novoselitsky <doik@olokkeol.la> - 2023-08-07 09:04 +0000
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 11:14 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-06 16:55 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:05 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-06 17:51 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-06 19:17 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:20 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-06 19:52 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-06 22:02 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-06 11:45 +0200
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 10:35 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:41 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-06 11:45 +0200
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:51 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Murel Bah <ulhm@eaamemaa.ml> - 2023-08-05 18:10 +0000
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Liod Shakhtmeister <adlh@emlhsdha.os> - 2023-08-07 08:10 +0000
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:50 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-04 22:32 +0200
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 13:53 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:24 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:28 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-06 15:30 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:53 -0400
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:54 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:21 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:44 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:48 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 12:37 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:11 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:40 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:48 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-08-03 11:24 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:37 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 18:20 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 17:54 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 billv <billv@nowhere.void.net> - 2023-08-02 22:23 -0500
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 23:31 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 23:27 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-02 14:26 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-03 07:54 +0200
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 04:18 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 05:08 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 07:11 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 08:32 -0700
Re: Time as "what clocks indicate" - part 2 Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 12:26 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c470d57-c97d-480b-87ad-8385bd7635den@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616889 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/5/2023 7:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:20:49 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/5/2023 3:58 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/5/2023 12:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 05:28:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >>>> That they used two modes does not mean they had determined the effective one before launch. It could have been determined during the mission in accordance with empirical data from that mission. In any case the amount is not predicted by the theory of relativity because it is not time dilation. It is instrumental error. > >>> > >>>>> On 8/4/2023 4:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/4/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oppositely - you do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > >>>>>>>>>>>> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > >>>>>>>>>>>> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > >>>>>>>>>>>> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. > >>>>>>>>>> Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > >>>>>>>>>> correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > >>>>>>>>>> first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > >>>>>>>>>> offset) ? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > >>>>>>>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > >>>>>>>>>> predicts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why doesn't Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clocks, think relativity predicted it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question. How did the GPS engineers happen to come > >>>>>>>> up with the exact right frequency right away? Why was that frequency > >>>>>>>> exactly the same as what GR predicts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Essen was simply wrong if he really stated what you claim. Whether he > >>>>>>>> understood GR itself and its effects isn't known. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> They did not come up with it until they got the empirical data from the satellites. > >>>>>> How the hell could they get the empirical data from satellites if it was > >>>>>> the VERY FIRST cesium clock flown in space, EVER? This mission was the > >>>>>> PROTOTYPE for the GPS satellites, and the whole reason for the existence > >>>>>> of the switch between 10.2299999954326 MHz and 10.23 MHz was because > >>>>> > >>>>> Stupid Mike, do you really believe they made nothing but > >>>>> 2 values possible? > >>>> I am going by the engineering design of the NS-2 satellite mission and > >>>> the mission report from that mission. Both the design spec and mission > >>>> report mention only two settings, which I call "Newton Mode" and > >>>> "Einstein Mode". > >>>> > >>>> That mission ran in "Newton mode" for 20 days where the transmitted > >>>> carrier was 10.23 MHz, after it was switched to "Einstein mode" for the > >>>> remainder of the mission, where the carrier was 10.2299999954326 MHz. > >>>> The mission report stated it didn't work while in "Newton Mode" but did > >>>> work correctly in "Einstein Mode". The report did not mention any other > >>>> switch settings. > >>>>> That's how you imagine "a switch", > >>>>> isn't it? > >>>> While most switches have two positions, it is not a requirement or > >>>> definition of a switch. But the design spec stated there were just two > >>>> possibilities for the switch, which I call "Newton Mode" and "Einstein > >>>> Mode". The mission report only mentioned two positions as well. The > >>>> "Newton Mode" setting didn't work while "Einstein Mode" did work correctly. > >>>> > >>>> If there were additional switch settings, what would the values for > >>>> those settings be, and why? Why were the additional settings never used > >>>> during the mission? > >> > >>> That they used two modes does not mean they had determined the effective one before launch. It could have been determined during the mission in accordance with empirical data from that mission. > >> I already told you, this mission was the first mission to fly Cs atomic > >> clocks in space. THERE WAS NO EMPIRICAL DATA THAT COULD BE USED! None! > >> Trying to reintroduce nonexistent empirical data from nonexistent > >> previous missions after you were told it doesn't exist sounds like pure > >> desperation on your part. > >> > >> There were two modes because they had NOT determined the correct one > >> before launch, but they eliminated all but two possibilities. This > >> launch was sufficiently cutting edge that there was uncertainty whether > >> Newtonian/Galilean physics would work (transmit at 10.23 MHz to be > >> received at 10.23 MHz) or Einsteinian physics (transmit at > >> 10.2299999954326 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz) was correct. > >> > >> This mission was successful to the point where it was clear that > >> Einsteinian physics was correct. Every single GPS satellite launched > >> since then transmits at 10.2299999954326 MHz, and the switch to 10.23 > >> MHz was never included again. Einstein's relativity vindicated yet again. > >>> In any case the amount is not predicted by the theory of relativity because it is not time dilation. > >> Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz figure was exactly predicted by > >> Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. That number was NOT > >> picked at random. > >> > >>> It is instrumental error. > >> > >> Relativity is not instrumental error. Relativity is physics. Again, I > >> sense your desperation. > > > Volney, I already said, empirical data on that very mission. Please listen. > How can you use empirical data from this mission to set the GR carrier > frequency to 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch? Is there a time > traveler involved who derives the empirical data from this mission, goes > back in time to before the launch and tells the engineers to use > 10.2299999954326 MHz? Since there is NO other empirical data which can > be used (except from other future space flights that can be sent back in > time?) > > The Schwartzchild metric includes c for the speed of gravity when this idea is disproven, or gravity would not escape black holes. > Not an argument. A charged black hole will still exhibit its charge to > the universe despite the speed of light. > > I am not in the slightest bit persuaded by relativity, > Of course not. It is one of the symptoms of crackpottery. > > so I am not desperate. > Well now you are apparently involving time travel to get the empirical > data as an alternate to engineers and physicists simply plugging the > orbital altitude and speed and earth's mass into a GR equation to come > up with the 10.2299999954326 MHz, rather than accepting physicists doing > their thing, it sounds like desperation to me. > > Relativity is not physics. it is pseudoscience. > Since relativity is a theory which is falsifiable and can be used to > make predictions, it is physics. > > Relativity is not necessary for determining the instrumental error of clocks in space. > Except there is no instrumental error. If there was, and it could not be > controlled, the GPS system would be useless. The GR effect is much > larger than actual errors in the system, something like 10 km/day, each > and every day, cumulative. > > I hope you have the intelligence to understand that Essen is not a creationist because he published in a Creationist journal or that he feels vindicated by it unlike your comrade. > It sounds like HE was desperate as well, to lower himself to publish in > a creationist "journal" like that. Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjaj73Fqe43U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616918 |
On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: <...> > Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with unknown massless entities. But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then that's what cranks usually do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7d104df-d9c9-42af-a22b-6ff0038695e9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616928 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > <...> > > Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. > In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity > one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since > "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with > unknown massless entities. > > But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. > > In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then > that's what cranks usually do. It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjamfmFr0tbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616931 |
On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >> <...> >>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. >> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity >> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since >> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with >> unknown massless entities. >> >> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. >> >> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then >> that's what cranks usually do. > It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite. You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c5cd587-8a9e-4f69-acb3-41c25c80fac9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616939 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > >> <...> > >>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. > >> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity > >> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since > >> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with > >> unknown massless entities. > >> > >> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. > >> > >> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then > >> that's what cranks usually do. > > It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite. > You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is > instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction? The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very exponential multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital dynamics so much Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine tune for a .43" difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 19:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjargvFrnerU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616942 |
On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> >>>> <...> >>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. Essen was correct that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. >>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity >>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since >>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with >>>> unknown massless entities. >>>> >>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. >>>> >>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then >>>> that's what cranks usually do. >>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite. >> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is >> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction? > The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very exponential multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital dynamics so much Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine tune for a .43" difference. So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8783c52e-e914-4297-8a07-029981336d52n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616947 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> <...> > >>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was > > 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? > Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the > > Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has > nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s > instantaneous. Black > > holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't > escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make > predictions > > because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different > rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently > accountable > > for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are > very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is > laudable. You > > could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a > diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. > Essen was correct > > that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. > > >>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity > >>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since > >>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with > >>>> unknown massless entities. > >>>> > >>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. > >>>> > >>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then > >>>> that's what cranks usually do. > > >>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite. > > >> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is > >> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction? > > > The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's > > perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have > calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very > exponential > > multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it > would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital > dynamics so much > > Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine > tune for a .43" difference. > So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is > instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of > gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize > that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of > this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The > Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate > discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in. You might try getting some fresh air and exercise to clear your head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjati1FrnerU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616948 |
On 8/6/2023 7:20 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 8/6/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2023 1:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <...> >>>>>>> Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was >> >> 1977, and the GPS was 1978. Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? >> Can't they recalibrate after launch? The point is that c is used in the >> >> Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has >> nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s >> instantaneous. Black >> >> holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't >> escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Relativity does not make >> predictions >> >> because illogical predictions have no predictive value. The different >> rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently >> accountable >> >> for. Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are >> very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. Their extreme skepticism is >> laudable. You >> >> could learn some skepticism. A diamond in a garbage can is still a >> diamond. Professional journals are garbage cans full of junk science. >> Essen was correct >> >> that to accept relativity, you must forsake science for dogma. >> >>>>>> In order to make a claim that gravity has an escape velocity >>>>>> one must first establish that gravity itself has mass since >>>>>> "escape velocity" correlates directly with mass, not with >>>>>> unknown massless entities. >>>>>> >>>>>> But then if gravity has mass it cannot have infinite velocity. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the above you're describing a fantasy universe. But then >>>>>> that's what cranks usually do. >> >>>>> It doesn't have infinite velocity. Laplace gives it a velocity many times the speed of light but short of infinite. >> >>>> You can't have it both ways. Above you wrote, "The speed of gravity is >>>> instantaneous" so what is fact, what fiction? >> >>> The Newtonian formulas treat it as instantaneous resulting in such high accuracy that the worst error in the solar system dynamics is .43" in mercury's >> >> perihelion advance per year. Laplace and several other astronomers have >> calculated that it must be very close to instantaneous giving a very >> exponential >> >> multiple of the speed of light. They agree that if it were c then it >> would result in such angular momentum as to throw out the orbital >> dynamics so much >> >> Earth's orbital radii would double in 1,200 years. So that cannot fine >> tune for a .43" difference. >> So you do not understand that writing The speed of gravity is >> instantaneous is exactly the same as saying the speed of >> gravity is infinite? Are you saying that you don't realize >> that you are arguing against yourself? For the purpose of >> this discussion none of your paragraph beginning with "The >> Newtonian formulas..." has any bearing. That is a separate >> discussion altogether, one that we are not presently engaged in. > You might try getting some fresh air and exercise to clear your head. Thank you. I accept your "end of unresolved discussion" marker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 22:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uapjc3$2m7nk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616918 |
On 8/6/2023 2:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/5/2023 7:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> I hope you have the intelligence to understand that Essen is not a creationist because he published in a Creationist journal or that he feels vindicated by it unlike your comrade. >> It sounds like HE was desperate as well, to lower himself to publish in >> a creationist "journal" like that. > Your undisclosed source asserts the clocks were preset before launch. My source did not say it was the first atomic clock in space. Only that it was 1977, and the GPS was 1978. NAVSTAR NTS-2 was essentially a demonstration satellite for the GPS project. It was launched on June 23, 1977 and contained the first two Cs clocks in space. The 1978 satellites were the first satellites in the GPS constellation. > Was there an earlier atomic clock in space? Can't they recalibrate after launch? The NTS-2 of 1977 was the first Cs clock in space. Due to technical limitations of the time (1977) there wasn't a way to include a programmable clock, only ones with a fixed predetermined divisor. There was no reason for a programmable clock anyway, since they already knew that the only possible values were Newton Mode and Einstein Mode divisors, and a programmable switch to select between them. > The point is that c is used in the Schwartzchild metric to allegedly predict the time dilation, yet it has nothing to do with the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity s instantaneous. Recent experiments (LIGO) shows that gravity has a speed of c. > Black holes have an escape velocity faster than light, so gravity couldn't escape them if gravity moved at light speed. Yet we can measure the electric charge of black holes, despite the speed of electromagnetic radiation being c. I don't know the physics as to why gravity and electric charge can "escape" but not light/photons. > Relativity does not make predictions because illogical predictions have no predictive value. Except relativity doesn't make illogical predictions. Every prediction it makes has exact physics and mathematics behind it. > The different rate of the clocks in orbit is an instrumental error and is consistently accountable for. Any "instrumental error" would ruin the whole GPS concept. It requires exact precision to the point where the ~500 parts per trillion time dilation due to GR must be accounted for, else it would not work. > Even Creationists can get some things right. For example, they are very disinclined to idol-worship Einstein. And same goes for scientists. > Their extreme skepticism is laudable. You could learn some skepticism. Skepticism is fine but it's not the same as outright rejection just because you don't like it (or have mental health issues centered on it, as many here demonstrate).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 11:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qf1fe4.2lsgxy25yc3jN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #616886 |
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote: > Volney, I already said, empirical data on that very mission. Please > listen. The Schwartzchild metric includes c for the speed of gravity when > this idea is disproven, or gravity would not escape black holes. Therefore > it is an invalid metric. I am not in the slightest bit persuaded by > relativity, so I am not desperate. Relativity is not physics. it is > pseudoscience. Relativity is not necessary for determining the > instrumental error of clocks in space. I hope you have the intelligence to > understand that Essen is not a creationist because he published in a > Creationist journal or that he feels vindicated by it unlike your comrade. Eh, that was me, about Essen and creationism. To fair, I don't know about Essen's christian opinions. What I do know is that Essen published in a junk creationist journal because there apparently wasn't any reputable physics journal that would accept his junk. Equally killing things like Vixra didn't exist yet. As for the cretinists, they are exceedingly glad to have him. See <https://creationwiki.org/Time> for example. Relativity must be wrong because of "God's Sovereignty over Time". Yeah, sure. Or even more hilarious also in creation wiki: <https://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/MSKing_GodVsDarwin-TheLogicalSupremacyOfIntelligentDesignCreationismOverEvolution_2015_169pp/MSKing_GodVsDarwin-TheLogicalSupremacyOfIntelligentDesignCreationismOverEvolution_2015_169pp.pdf> Essen is quoted as saying: "Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma." He could have been posting here, if he was still alive. Essen certainly didn't understand it, so I guess that qualifies him. Anyway, I also know of no attempts by Louis Essen to distance himself from all this creationist abuse, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58003f5e-248d-4719-9a10-42a978580259n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616908 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:45:22 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Volney, I already said, empirical data on that very mission. Please > > listen. The Schwartzchild metric includes c for the speed of gravity when > > this idea is disproven, or gravity would not escape black holes. Therefore > > it is an invalid metric. I am not in the slightest bit persuaded by > > relativity, so I am not desperate. Relativity is not physics. it is > > pseudoscience. Relativity is not necessary for determining the > > instrumental error of clocks in space. I hope you have the intelligence to > > understand that Essen is not a creationist because he published in a > > Creationist journal or that he feels vindicated by it unlike your comrade. > Eh, that was me, about Essen and creationism. > To fair, I don't know about Essen's christian opinions. > What I do know is that Essen published in a junk creationist journal > because there apparently wasn't any reputable physics journal > that would accept his junk. > Equally killing things like Vixra didn't exist yet. > > As for the cretinists, they are exceedingly glad to have him. > See <https://creationwiki.org/Time> for example. > Relativity must be wrong because of "God's Sovereignty over Time". > Yeah, sure. > > Or even more hilarious also in creation wiki: > <https://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/MSKing_GodVsDarwin-TheLogicalSupremacyOfIntelligentDesignCreationismOverEvolution_2015_169pp/MSKing_GodVsDarwin-TheLogicalSupremacyOfIntelligentDesignCreationismOverEvolution_2015_169pp.pdf> > Essen is quoted as saying: > "Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot > expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of > their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma." > He could have been posting here, if he was still alive. > Essen certainly didn't understand it, so I guess that qualifies him. > > Anyway, I also know of no attempts by Louis Essen to distance himself > from all this creationist abuse, > > Jan Einstein never believed in the black hole and rightly so. BHs are a math failure of his theory. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-05 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <363bc459-126c-4493-beb6-f938134e6221n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616873 |
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 21:02:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/5/2023 12:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 05:28:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/4/2023 4:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/4/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > >>>>>>>>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > >>>>>>>>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > >>>>>>>>>> Oppositely - you do. > >>>>>>>>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > >>>>>>>>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > >>>>>>>>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > >>>>>>>> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > >>>>>>>> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > >>>>>>>> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. > >>>>>> Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > >>>>>> correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > >>>>>> first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > >>>>>> offset) ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > >>>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > >>>>>> predicts? > >>>> > >>>>> Why doesn't Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clocks, think relativity predicted it? > >> > >>>> You didn't answer the question. How did the GPS engineers happen to come > >>>> up with the exact right frequency right away? Why was that frequency > >>>> exactly the same as what GR predicts? > >>>> > >>>> Essen was simply wrong if he really stated what you claim. Whether he > >>>> understood GR itself and its effects isn't known. > >> > >>> They did not come up with it until they got the empirical data from the satellites. > >> How the hell could they get the empirical data from satellites if it was > >> the VERY FIRST cesium clock flown in space, EVER? This mission was the > >> PROTOTYPE for the GPS satellites, and the whole reason for the existence > >> of the switch between 10.2299999954326 MHz and 10.23 MHz was because > > > > Stupid Mike, do you really believe they made nothing but > > 2 values possible? > I am going by the engineering design of the NS-2 satellite mission and > the mission report from that mission. Both the design spec and mission > report mention only two settings, which I call "Newton Mode" and > "Einstein Mode". So what? Do you think they weren't prepared for any settings [in some range]? We already know that you insist on calling your ISO idiocy "Newton mode", because it doesn't work. You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 11:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qf1hod.1u1enqnn885acN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #616873 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/5/2023 12:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: [-] > I am going by the engineering design of the NS-2 satellite mission and > the mission report from that mission. Both the design spec and mission > report mention only two settings, which I call "Newton Mode" and > "Einstein Mode". > > That mission ran in "Newton mode" for 20 days where the transmitted > carrier was 10.23 MHz, after it was switched to "Einstein mode" for the > remainder of the mission, where the carrier was 10.2299999954326 MHz. > The mission report stated it didn't work while in "Newton Mode" but did > work correctly in "Einstein Mode". The report did not mention any other > switch settings. > > > That's how you imagine "a switch", > > isn't it? > > While most switches have two positions, it is not a requirement or > definition of a switch. But the design spec stated there were just two > possibilities for the switch, which I call "Newton Mode" and "Einstein > Mode". The mission report only mentioned two positions as well. The > "Newton Mode" setting didn't work while "Einstein Mode" did work correctly. > > If there were additional switch settings, what would the values for > those settings be, and why? Why were the additional settings never used > during the mission? There were no doubt 'almost infinitely' many possible positions. It is a frequency synthesiser after all. But the thing had to manipulated while in orbit. KISS applies. It makes no sense to prepare beforehand for the possibility of relativity being half-true, when there is no reason at all to suspect anything like that, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-05 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8fdaaa1-b342-4dd8-9dfc-2b84d52fd74fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616839 |
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/4/2023 4:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/4/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > >>>>>>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > >>>>>>>>>>> Sure: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > >>>>>>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > >>>>>>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > >>>>>>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > >>>>>>>> Oppositely - you do. > >>>>>>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > >>>>>>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > >>>>>>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > >>>> > >>>>>> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > >>>>>> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > >>>>>> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > >>>>>> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > >>>> > >>>>> GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. > >>>> Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > >>>> correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. > >>>> > >>>> How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > >>>> first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > >>>> offset) ? > >>>> > >>>> How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > >>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > >>>> predicts? > >> > >>> Why doesn't Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clocks, think relativity predicted it? > > >> You didn't answer the question. How did the GPS engineers happen to come > >> up with the exact right frequency right away? Why was that frequency > >> exactly the same as what GR predicts? > >> > >> Essen was simply wrong if he really stated what you claim. Whether he > >> understood GR itself and its effects isn't known. > > > They did not come up with it until they got the empirical data from the satellites. > How the hell could they get the empirical data from satellites if it was > the VERY FIRST cesium clock flown in space, EVER? This mission was the > PROTOTYPE for the GPS satellites, and the whole reason for the existence > of the switch between 10.2299999954326 MHz and 10.23 MHz was because > they weren't 100% sure about relativity, and adding a remote switch was > much cheaper than losing the entire mission if they guessed wrong about > relativity being applicable. > > You sound DESPERATE to try to prove relativity wrong. Get another hobby, > physics isn't for you. > > He sure did understand it as is known because he called it a joke and a swindle. > Calling things names isn't how science works. Did he have any evidence > that relativity didn't predict the numbers, and it must have been a > lucky lottery guess? In 1977 two cesium atomic clocks were sent into orbit with Navigation Satellite 2 before the GPS used atomic clocks in 1978.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Murel Bah <ulhm@eaamemaa.ml> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-05 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uam3ag$69m8$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616866 |
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> Calling things names isn't how science works. Did he have any evidence >> that relativity didn't predict the numbers, and it must have been a >> lucky lottery guess? > In 1977 two cesium atomic clocks were sent into orbit with Navigation > Satellite 2 before the GPS used atomic clocks in 1978. so true indeed. In 1977 america was still a country. A man 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲, to buy a house, a car, and a wife taking care of the children. Now the LGBTQ+ are taking care of that. Whereas the americans are so stupid not caring anymore. They say LGBTQ+ is good! They also take 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲 from the regime, with a smile on their face. That is good for the environment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Liod Shakhtmeister <adlh@emlhsdha.os> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 08:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uaq8u5$ieqs$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616868 |
markus...@gmail.com wrote: >> > In 1977 two cesium atomic clocks were sent into orbit with Navigation >> > Satellite 2 before the GPS used atomic clocks in 1978. >> >> so true indeed. In 1977 america was still a country. A man 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 >> 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲, >> to buy a house, a car, and a wife taking care of the children. Now the >> LGBTQ+ are taking care of that. Whereas the americans are so stupid not >> caring anymore. They say LGBTQ+ is good! They also take 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 >> 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲 from the regime, with a smile on their face. That is good for >> the environment. > LGBT isn't to blame for the faults of capitalism. sure indeed. He already said you are so fucking stupid. LGBTQ+ is good for you, stinking braindead wankers. Have shame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-05 14:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uam5kr$1r57q$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616866 |
On 8/5/2023 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/4/2023 4:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/4/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. >>>>>>>>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, >>>>>>>>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. >>>>>>>>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: >>>>>>>>>> Oppositely - you do. >>>>>>>>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ >>>>>>>>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. >>>>>>>>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" >>>>>>>> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time >>>>>>>> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation >>>>>>>> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. >>>>>> >>>>>>> GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. >>>>>> Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was >>>>>> correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the >>>>>> first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 >>>>>> offset) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, >>>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity >>>>>> predicts? >>>> >>>>> Why doesn't Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clocks, think relativity predicted it? >> >>>> You didn't answer the question. How did the GPS engineers happen to come >>>> up with the exact right frequency right away? Why was that frequency >>>> exactly the same as what GR predicts? >>>> >>>> Essen was simply wrong if he really stated what you claim. Whether he >>>> understood GR itself and its effects isn't known. >> >>> They did not come up with it until they got the empirical data from the satellites. >> How the hell could they get the empirical data from satellites if it was >> the VERY FIRST cesium clock flown in space, EVER? This mission was the >> PROTOTYPE for the GPS satellites, and the whole reason for the existence >> of the switch between 10.2299999954326 MHz and 10.23 MHz was because >> they weren't 100% sure about relativity, and adding a remote switch was >> much cheaper than losing the entire mission if they guessed wrong about >> relativity being applicable. >> >> You sound DESPERATE to try to prove relativity wrong. Get another hobby, >> physics isn't for you. >>> He sure did understand it as is known because he called it a joke and a swindle. >> Calling things names isn't how science works. Did he have any evidence >> that relativity didn't predict the numbers, and it must have been a >> lucky lottery guess? > In 1977 two cesium atomic clocks were sent into orbit with Navigation Satellite 2 before the GPS used atomic clocks in 1978. NS-2 *is* the prototype GPS satellite with the switch between using the 10.23 MHz carrier and the 10.2299999954326 MHz carrier! Thank you for confirming that this mission was the first (first two) cesium clocks in space, making the use of any empirical data impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-04 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qeykr6.1skl0ogwmsjv7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #616810 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/4/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:43:24?AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58?AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed > >>>>>>>>>>> is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > >>>>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > >>>>>>>>> Sure: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > >>>>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > >>>>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > >>>>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > >>>>>> Oppositely - you do. > >>>>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > >>>>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > >>>>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > >> > >>>> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > >>>> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > >>>> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > >>>> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > >>> > >>> GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they > >>> would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined > >>> difference. That is really what they already do. > >> Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > >> correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. > >> > >> How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > >> first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > >> offset) ? > >> > >> How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > >> 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > >> predicts? > > > Why doesn't Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clocks, think relativity > > predicted it? > > > You didn't answer the question. How did the GPS engineers happen to come > up with the exact right frequency right away? Why was that frequency > exactly the same as what GR predicts? > > Essen was simply wrong if he really stated what you claim. Whether he > understood GR itself and its effects isn't known. Essen really did say those kind of things. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen> He wrote abook criticising relativity, and time dilation in particular. He appears to have been one of those great experimentalists who are incapable of understanding theory, Jan Ping Athel, if you are seeing this: Essen also seems to have been a creationist. (an accident rarely comes alone) Essen submitted a critique of Hafele and Keating's experiment to Nature. Nature rejected it, but Essen feels vindicated because he succeeded in getting it accepted for publication in the Creation Research Quarterly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bfed8d8-90f0-434c-b42a-6cf3cddebe62n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616795 |
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > >>>>>>> Sure: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > >>>> Oppositely - you do. > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG. You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different number of MHz. > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > offset) ? > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > predicts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9290bac-4c60-41c8-a041-95ecb62a46c5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616923 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:53:20 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 8/3/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:28:58 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > >> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:22:02 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 13:39:48 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > > >>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:17:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 9:46:09 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > > >>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 15:05:35 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>>>> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2023 a las 2:29:39 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 00:03:29 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Great definition. It means that if I sit in a coach, my speed is 0 and my distance is 0, so my time is undefined? > > >>>>>>>> Do you have another opinion? Is it defined? Tell us > > >>>>>>>> about it, poor halfbrain. > > >>>>>>> Sure: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Time is what a clock reads. > > >>>>>> Not in your physics idiocies, sorry. Anyone can check GPS, > > >>>>>> what clocks read doesn't match them at all. > > >>>>> You totally ignore what the people, which runs the GPS system, use: > > >>>> Oppositely - you do. > > >>>> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/ > > >>>> This is what GPS clocks read, poor halfbrain. Too bad. > > >>> For sure that is not an official page about GPS. > > > > >> And for sure there is nothing about "what clocks read" > > >> in your quoting. All the clocks of GPS read the same time > > >> scale, some seconds different from TAI. No moronic dilation > > >> between them. But you're free to enchant the reality. > > > > > GPS would work perfectly even if relativity were unknown because they would merely adjust the clocks for the empirically determined difference. That is really what they already do. > > Why would there be *any* empirical difference if Newtonian physics was > > correct? Transmit at 10.23 MHz, receive at 10.23 MHz. Zero difference. > NO, THIS ASSUMPTION IS WRONG. > You forgot that the receiver is in a state of motion wrt the source and thus it will receive a different > number of MHz. > > > > How did they manage to get the exact frequency offset correct with the > > first attempt (actually second attempt, first was really 10.23 MHz w/ 0 > > offset) ? > > > > How did they manage to come up with exactly the correct frequency, > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, which just happens to be exactly what relativity > > predicts? That's the frequency of the clocks, not the transmission.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web