Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666151

Re: Time and sharks

Subject Re: Time and sharks
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
References (9 earlier) <1866480eb44a5e21$3027664$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <DMsfg2kMTYcdIe6kXyg-cVufKyA@jntp> <186658318b3085ae$3087335$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <gaTyQ.27308$Ft95.18227@fx16.ams4> <186663a944203697$3183842$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
From "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Message-ID <PIZyQ.3$Fa19.2@fx06.ams4> (permalink)
Organization Eweka Internet Services
Date 2025-09-18 22:14 +0200

Show all headers | View raw

Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> And  I've convinced both of you to many
> things - you're not repeating many of
> your errors anymore. 

Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?

30.6.2025| If we have a clock on the ground, which is built according
| to the SI definition of second, then this clock will
| measure a mean solar day to last 84600 seconds.
|
| If we put the _same_ clock in GPS orbit, then this clock will
| measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000037771 seconds.
|
| If we put the _same_ clock in Galileo orbit, then this clock will
| measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000039946 seconds.
|
| If we put the _same_ clock in GLONASS orbit, then this clock will
| measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000036870 seconds.
|
| This isn't theory, it is real, practical measurement made in
| the real world. It is proved every day by the simple fact
| that all three GNSS systems work.
27.8.2035| It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
| have the SI-definition built in.
| https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
| "The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
|  of the radiation corresponding to the transition
|  between  the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
|  the Cesium 133 atom.
| "
| That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition.
|
| But not even atomic clocks are infinitely precise.
| The precision of the TAI clocks are probably in the order
| of 1e-15 (or better), which means that during one year
| the clock may be 30 ns (or less) ahead or behind the correct time.
| This is not good enough as base for the UTC.
|
| So a TAI-second is the average of 450+ atomic clocks, and will
| be very close to the second defined by SI.

28.8.2025| All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
|
| In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based
| on a quartz crystal. If the frequency of this
| quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz,
| you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick
| once every second.
|
| In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
| corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
| energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
| then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
| by definition. So if you have a modulo 9192631770 counter
| you will get one tick every second.
|
| Both these clocks are running according to the SI-definition,
| advancing one SI second each second, the difference is the precision.
| The quartz clock can be expected to be a few seconds wrong
| after a year, while the atomic clock can be expected to be
| few ns (or less) wrong after a year.
|
| Clocks, whether they are quartz clocks or atomic clocks,
| will always and everywhere run at the same rate.
| They will tick once each second whether they are at the ground
| or in a GPS satellite.

31.8.2025| GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of
| EM-radiation by a massive object, observed from the Earth, is:
|
|   θ = (2·GM/(b·c²))·(1 + cosφ)   (1)
|
| Where:
| b  = impact parameter,
|      ray's closest approach to centre of massive object
| φ  = angle between light source and centre of massive object
|      as observed from the Earth
| c  = speed of light in vacuum
| G  = Gravitational constant
| M  = mass of massive object
|
| The "massive object" may be the Sun, a galaxy, a quasar or a black hole.
|
| The "light source" may be a star or a galaxy.
|
| Experimental evidence:
| https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
| https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
| https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
| https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
| https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
|
| GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
| EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed
| that it can be considered a fact.

4.9.2025| However, what GR has defined is a geodetic line.
| https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
| See page 28
| 10. The Equation of the Geodetic Line. The Motion of a Particle
|
| Loosely: a geodetic line is the path of a moving particle.
| or the CG of a body.
|
| A geodetic line is a line in spacetime.
| But this line has a spatial component, and a temporal component.
| If you throw a clock, the curved path you see is
| the spatial component. The temporal component is the proper
| time measured by the clock from your hand to the ground.

6.9.2025| In gravitational lensing the light source is behind
| the massive object, In this case GR predicts
| that the deflection of light observed from the Earth is:
| θ = (4·GM/(b·c²))
| Where:
| b  = impact parameter,
|      ray's closest approach to centre of massive object
| c  = speed of light in vacuum
| G  = Gravitational constant
| M  = mass of massive object
|
| This is the only gravitational deflection of light
| that will give gravitational lensing as observed:
| https://tinyurl.com/533fynfb
7.9.2025| I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts
| gravitational deflection into your face.
|
| https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
| In chapter
| 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational
|    Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of
|    a Planetary Orbit
|
| We find on page 69;
| "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
|  by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of
|  co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1,
|  the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave
|  towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by
|  . . . .
|  Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ
|  . . . .
|  According to this, a ray of light going past the sun
|  undergoes a deflexion of 1.7"
| "

11.9.2025
| These  papers falsify your hypothesis that
| Robert Vivian Pound is a brainwashed religious maniac:
|
| https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
| https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf
|
| You haven't read any paper by Pound, have you?
| You know you wouldn't understand them, don't you?
| And any paper you don't understand must be written by
| a brainwashed religious maniac, right? 😂

11.9.2025| Einstein knew something which you don't.
| The Pythagorean Theorem is true by definition (*).
| This is mathematics, not physics.
|
| That a famous physicist "has announced
| the Pythagorean Theorem false" can only be claimed
| by a person who is so ignorant of basic mathematics
| that he doesn't know that in mathematics theorems
| are always true.
| "Experimental evidence" has no place in mathematics.
|
| (*) A mathematical theorem is proven true by logical
|     derivation from a set of axioms which are true
|     by definition.


14.9.2035| This experiment is performed in the real world,
| See:
| https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
|
| It is really two experiment:
|
| Experiment 1:
| Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground.
| Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on
| an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction.
| When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
| Result:
| Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A-
|
| Experiment 2:
| Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground.
| Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on
| an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction.
| When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
| Result:
| Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A-
|
| You can see the principle of the calculation here:
| (Well, not you, but potential lurkers can)
| https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:48 +0200
  Re: Time and sharks Jace Dubanowski <jwo@scj.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:18 +0000
  Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 14:17 +0200
    Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:14 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks Richard Bukowski <iia@sirwihkw.pl> - 2025-09-15 14:59 +0000
        Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:46 -0700
          Re: Time and sharks Nich Majewski <wka@nwnn.pl> - 2025-09-16 11:03 +0000
      Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 16:50 +0000
        Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 19:16 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 22:10 +0200
        Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:44 +0200
          Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 10:47 +0200
            Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 12:14 +0200
              Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:11 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:00 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:14 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:41 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:44 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:53 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:56 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:03 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:05 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:27 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:33 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 07:05 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 08:33 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 12:01 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:47 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:26 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:31 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 22:14 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 22:37 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-19 15:40 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 15:59 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Stefhen Maslanka <nts@anhks.pl> - 2025-09-19 14:42 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 20:17 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:19 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 22:04 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:59 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-20 22:52 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Azael Christakos <aslo@aors.gr> - 2025-09-20 21:30 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Vaugn Krakowski <ksa@nink.pl> - 2025-09-21 12:02 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-20 23:35 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 15:35 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 19:33 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:48 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Neury Wronski <uuks@wieisrow.pl> - 2025-09-18 16:32 +0000
    Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:42 -0700
      Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:22 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:23 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 15:57 -0700
        Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:56 +0200
    Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:46 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 12:53 -0700
        Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-17 08:56 +0200
      Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:26 +0200
        Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-21 10:42 +0200
          Re: Time and sharks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-25 15:21 +0200
            Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 15:28 +0200
              Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:24 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 23:35 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 09:00 +0200
            Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 15:52 +0000
              Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:54 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 07:26 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 11:54 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 14:28 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 21:38 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:00 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-26 23:27 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:03 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:31 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Mauro Górski <iaib@mampg.pl> - 2025-09-26 22:20 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 18:24 +0000
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:04 +0200
                Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 19:59 +0200
            Re: Time and sharks Hollis Meeuwissen <iii@hsuw.nl> - 2025-09-25 18:53 +0000
            Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:48 +0200

csiph-web