In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 years after,

[rhertz]

This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
......

(1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂/c² Φ

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy
E₁ arriving at S₁ is greater than the energy E₂, measured by the same
means, which
was emitted from S₂, the excess being the potential energy of the mass
E₂/c² in the
gravitational field.

This shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have to
ascribe to the
energy E, before its emission from S₂, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which
corresponds to the (gravitational) mass E₂/c².

***********************************************************************

NOTE: Φ = -GM/r, the gravitational potential on Earth, at a distance r
from its center.

Einstein simplified Eq. 1a for low heights as:

(1) E₁ = E₂ (1 + hγ/c²), where γ is the ground level gravitational
acceleration (today known as g).

As per Planck, it's known that the electromagnetic energies involved
are:

E₁ = hf₁
E₂ = hf₂

Then Eq.1 becomes

f₁ = f₂ (1 + hγ/c²)

OR

Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²


Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment, the
1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE, like in the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS.


Almost ALL relativists forget that the 1961 paper had the name: "Do
photons have weight?".

All relativists claim that the 1911 paper WAS WRONG, and that was valid
was the 1915 Schwarzschild solution, which is WIDELY USED TODAY, but
that contain the conjugate effects of SR and GR.

But RELATIVISTS FORGET that Schwarzschild solution is theoretically
separated in two parts: GR and SR effects.

Also (Paul and so many others), they FORGET that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to
measure each effect separately.

So, the 1911 Einstein's equation is ALIVE TODAY, and widely used (with
minor aggregations like quadrupolar momentum J2, which is irrelevant and
can be dismissed here).

What PERSISTS is that Einstein, Pound-Rebka and many others before and
after, ACCEPTED THAT PHOTONS HAD MASS.

If photons have mass (electromagnetic mass), then MANY THEORETICAL
EXPLANATIONS HAVE TO BE REFORMULATED.

If photons have mass, such mass has to be incorporated in the
calculations of gravitational fields and electromagnetic energies, as
Einstein CLAIMED in 1911.

Then, photons falling into Earth's surface GAIN KINETIC ENERGY WHILE
FALLING (blue-shifting), and photons abandoning Earth's surface LOSS
KINETIC ENERGY WHILE ESCAPING (red-shifting).

And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc². It
also implies that INERTIAL electromagnetic mass IS DIFFERENT FROM
GRAVITATIONAL ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS, and that the first one is variable
with height, in this way:

Δm/m₂ = -hGM/rc² (h represents the height above surface, being h << r.
Low altitudes).


Deal with that, relativists.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: They can't deal with it because they would have to give up
their mass-velocity relationship, which prevents anything with mass from
reaching c. They need photons to have mass to be affected by gravity.

[rhertz]

They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
increasing with speed, in this way:

1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.

2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.

The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
= (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.

Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
is stored

There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.

Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).

Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
a grain of sand or a neutron.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.
2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.
The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
= (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.
Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
is stored
There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.
Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).
Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
a grain of sand or a neutron.

The idea that solar sails have a principle of operation includes
both notions of solar flux after stellar pulsation, and as well
as what sort of results from Casimir, where Casimir force, and
Casimir effect, is cataloged under effects and forces when
they're "fictitious", in a world of "hidden" variables, what
as well are as simply complementary and supplementary in the
wider dialectic, vis-a-vis the ultraviolet catastrophe,
electron physics, and ignorance about notions like
the "second spectrum" of light and these kinds of things.

In 1846 Faraday announced new principles and effects about daily.
Many of these of course still exist as "empirical" or outside
the model of "most severe abstraction".

[Richard Hachel]

Post by rhertz
They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.
2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.
The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
= (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.
Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
is stored
There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.
Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).
Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
a grain of sand or a neutron.

Yes, there are scientists who are a little less stupid than the others who
no longer use this concept that should never have existed.

I think it is one of the stupidest and most fanatical concepts of the
theory of relativity. One day, it will disappear, perhaps thanks to
artificial intelligence that will come and stick its nose in it, and joke
about it; denouncing it as particularly stupid.

As for me, my hands are clean, I have been saying it for forty years, with
conviction and consistency.

I repeat it again here, it is NOT the mass that varies, but "the
impression of speed". The observer who measures the particles,
does not realize that the relativity of time, that is to say especially,
here, of the notion of simultaneity, makes him observe a false
measurement.
I called this false measurement the obversible speed Vo relative to the
real speed Vr of the particle in the subject's frame of reference.

Let's give the particle its real speed, and everything is in order.

Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) <---> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

p=m.Vr
E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]

In no case, in my life, have I ever posed m'=m/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

The concept is false and useless.

The absurd thought.

Does a hippopotamus become two hippos if we accelerate it?

No.

It increases its quantity of movement, it increases its overall energy, it
increases its kinetic energy. Not its "mass", nor its "electric charge".

R.H.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by rhertz
They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.
2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.
The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
= (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.
Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
is stored
There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.
Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).
Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
a grain of sand or a neutron.

Yes, there are scientists who are a little less stupid than the others
who no longer use this concept that should never have existed.
I think it is one of the stupidest and most fanatical concepts of the
theory of relativity. One day, it will disappear, perhaps thanks to
artificial intelligence that will come and stick its nose in it, and
joke about it; denouncing it as particularly stupid.
As for me, my hands are clean, I have been saying it for forty years,
with conviction and consistency.
I repeat it again here, it is NOT the mass that varies, but "the
impression of speed". The observer who measures the particles,
does not realize that the relativity of time, that is to say especially,
here, of the notion of simultaneity, makes him observe a false measurement.
I called this false measurement the obversible speed Vo relative to the
real speed Vr of the particle in the subject's frame of reference.
Let's give the particle its real speed, and everything is in order.
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) <---> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
p=m.Vr
E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]
In no case, in my life, have I ever posed m'=m/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
The concept is false and useless.
The absurd thought.
Does a hippopotamus become two hippos if we accelerate it?
No.
It increases its quantity of movement, it increases its overall energy,
it increases its kinetic energy. Not its "mass", nor its "electric charge".
R.H.

"... ["potential"] energy ...".

[Thomas Heger]

Post by rhertz
They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.

Both is wrong!

SRT is based on speed, but the 'background' of SRT is a dark and
force-free void, where the term 'speed' makes no sense.

But SRT isn't entirely wrong.

The question is not velocity, but the orientation of the axis of time!

Time is a local parameter, hence only a single axis of time exists in a
certain environment.

This 'axis of time' is actually imaginary, because time is orthogonal to
all the axes of space.

This means:
x= i*c*t

Now we could take a subset of spacetime and use only x and t.

Then t points upwards and x to the right.

This is actually, how we draw a complex 'Argand-diagramm'.

The axis of time is then the imaginary axis and the spacelike axis x the
real axis.

Now we could do an unsusual trick and rotate the picture and make the
axis of time point into another direction.

This would make the former space shrink andlet a new space emerge,
because the axes of space need to be perpendicular to the axis of time.

This new space is also filled with new matter, which pops out of nowhere
(suposed we could enter such a new space).

The latter statement is now the reason, why I think, that mass is not
conserved.


TH

(see my 'book' about this concept:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
......
Then Eq.1 becomes
f₁ = f₂ (1 + hγ/c²)
OR
Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²
Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment, the
1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE,

See equation (7) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

If we ignore the rotation of the Earth, GR predicts that
the gravitational blue shift is: (From Schwarzschild metric)





Δf/f = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/(R+h)) (1)

Where:
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of Earth
R = radius of Earth
c = speed of light
h = altitude, in this case height of the tower.

If h/R << 1 the equation can be simplifyed to:






Δf/f ≈ gh/c² (2)

where g = GM/R², the gravitational acceleration

In this case h/R ≈ 3.5e-6, which is << 1.

Post by rhertz
like in the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS

You mean this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf

The equation given in this paper is:





Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r) + ((aΩ)² − v²)/2c²

Where:
a = the radius of the Earth
r = the distance from the centre of the Earth to the satellite
Ω = the angular velocity of the Earth

The gravitational term is:



Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r)

Which is equal to (1), and, in this case, _very_ different from (2)

For Galileo r = 29600000 m.
a = 6378137 m
GM = 3.986004418e14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s

So the equation above give: Δf/f = 5.45516e-10

For Galileo the altitude is h = r - a = 23221863 m
g = 9.800 m/s²

Equation (2) gives Δf/f = gh/c² = 2.5321e-9

which is 2.6 times too high.

So Einstein's equation which you claim is the equation
used in the calculation of the gravitational blue shift
of satellites doesn't work. It is wrong.

Post by rhertz
Almost ALL relativists forget that the 1961 paper had the name: "Do
photons have weight?".

That may be because the name of the paper was:
"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"

https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
(The last paper)

One may say that photons appear to have weight because
they have momentum.

You probably know that you can weigh light?
Let the Sun shine of a sensitive weight, and it will register a force.
Photons have no mass, so it isn't gravitation.
But the weight does register something which is called weight. :-J

Post by rhertz
All relativists claim that the 1911 paper WAS WRONG, and that was valid
was the 1915 Schwarzschild solution, which is WIDELY USED TODAY, but
that contain the conjugate effects of SR and GR.
But RELATIVISTS FORGET that Schwarzschild solution is theoretically
separated in two parts: GR and SR effects.

When gravitation is involved, GR must be used.
But when the orbit (or path) is circular with the Earth in
the centre, there will be one term that depend on altitude,
and one term that depends on the velocity.
The former is called the gravitational term, the latter
is called the kinematic term.
It is however quite common to see the gravitational term called
the "GR term", and the kinematic term called the "SR term".
But both follows from the Schwarzschild metric.

Post by rhertz
Also (Paul and so many others), they FORGET that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to
measure each effect separately.

The Pound-Rebka was a measure of the gravitational term.
And so was gravity probe A.
And several experiments have tested the kinematic term.
In the latter case we would call it test of SR, because
it must be performed at constant gravitational potential.

Post by rhertz
So, the 1911 Einstein's equation is ALIVE TODAY, and widely used (with
minor aggregations like quadrupolar momentum J2, which is irrelevant and
can be dismissed here).

:-D
Equation (2) can only be used when h/R << 1, which will be
when the object is a tower or an aeroplane.

It is impossible to use it for satellites.

Post by rhertz
What PERSISTS is that Einstein, Pound-Rebka and many others before and
after, ACCEPTED THAT PHOTONS HAD MASS.

Nonsense.
Newton thought that light consisted of massive corpuscles,
But Einstein, Pound and Rebka thought that em-radiation was a wave
according to Maxwell, and that photons were small waves, limited
in time and space. According to Maxwell, em-radiation have
energy and momentum, but no mass.

Now we know that photons are particles with energy and momentum,
but no mass.

Post by rhertz
If photons have mass (electromagnetic mass), then MANY THEORETICAL
EXPLANATIONS HAVE TO BE REFORMULATED.

Many of the theoretical explanations of the 19. century
ARE REFORMULATED.

Were have you been the last century, Richard?

Post by rhertz
If photons have mass, such mass has to be incorporated in the
calculations of gravitational fields and electromagnetic energies, as
Einstein CLAIMED in 1911.
Then, photons falling into Earth's surface GAIN KINETIC ENERGY WHILE
FALLING (blue-shifting), and photons abandoning Earth's surface LOSS
KINETIC ENERGY WHILE ESCAPING (red-shifting).

If photons had mass, their speed would have to increase to make
the kinetic energy increase.

But the speed of light is constant as it falls.
Can you explain this?

Post by rhertz
And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².

Do you really not better? :-D

Post by rhertz
It
also implies that INERTIAL electromagnetic mass IS DIFFERENT FROM
GRAVITATIONAL ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS, and that the first one is variable
Δm/m₂ = -hGM/rc²  (h represents the height above surface, being h << r.
Low altitudes).

So you knew that gh/c² is an approximation which is only valid when
h << r?

Why did you then say that the equation gh/c² was usedin the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS,
where h = 3.64r ?

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².

Do you really not better? :-D

Do you really not know better?

[rhertz]

Paul, how fragile your memory is!

You forgot that I was the one who noticed you about the existence of the
Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!

Now, you have incorporated it into your list of crappy papers that you
treasure for decades.

Mudrak (an EE like you) was full of shit and anger when he wrote that
paper. He was MAD because the Galileo Consortium decided TO NOT
INCORPORATE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS INTO THE GROUND RECEIVERS. They
left the "responsability" to the receiver's manufacturers, WHICH DIDN'T
WANT TO FOLLOW GR.

That's still making crazy, isn't it?

You're wellcome.


*******************************************************************************

Post by rhertz
like in the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS

You mean this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf


The equation given in this paper is:






Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r) + ((aΩ)² − v²)/2c²


Where:
a = the radius of the Earth
r = the distance from the centre of the Earth to the satellite
Ω = the angular velocity of the Earth
****************************************************************************

[rhertz]

And I forgot that the H-K experiment was based on a THEORETICAL
CALCULATION (uber-cooked) about the separate effect of SR and GR (read
Mudrak also).


In reality, each effect CAN'T BE MEASURED SEPARATELY. You have ONE
"MEASUREMENT", which include both.

Don't mess with public information, Paul:

P.S.: Do you have the chance to get a life, or still thinking about what
to do with it?

Amateur relativist posing as a physicist. Shame on you! Go back to
program PICs and so, and to teach about numeric control.

Oh! I forgot: you were "retired" then and now, instead of enjoy your
golden years, you're losing time with relativity. What a pity.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
And I forgot that the H-K experiment was based on a THEORETICAL
CALCULATION (uber-cooked) about the separate effect of SR and GR (read
Mudrak also).
In reality, each effect CAN'T BE MEASURED SEPARATELY. You have ONE
"MEASUREMENT", which include both.
P.S.: Do you have the chance to get a life, or still thinking about what
to do with it?
Amateur relativist posing as a physicist. Shame on you! Go back to
program PICs and so, and to teach about numeric control.
Oh! I forgot: you were "retired" then and now, instead of enjoy your
golden years, you're losing time with relativity. What a pity.

You really could improve your decorum, the
simple contrarian's malcontentedness is as
unjustifiable as simply adding extra dimensions
or negating absolute magnitudes whenever you
think it's convenient.

Consider for example negative time or the
anti-deSitter, vis-a-vis, the Zollfrei metric.
Now, one might aver that it's just a convenient
scratch-board for torsion and functional freedom,
vis-a-vis that it's a field theory as of a continuous
manifold and it's a gauge theory, in what's established
as the isotropic space-time according to WMAP and
CMBR, yet the Zollfrei metric is much attached to
the smooth and rough plane or Euclid and Poincare,
maintaining continuity, keeping things smooth,
or connected, instead of having a mathematical
model with un-physical things, in it, like the difference
between superstring or supercorde theory simply
as a grain of continuous background far, far below
the Planckian, and brane theory and otherwise keeping
things connected, when functional freedom has to
go away, while asymptotic freedom is a profound
fact of modern mechanics.

So, your rhetoric must simply let the mathematical model
and physical model speak for themselves, nobody gets a
say, only the formalism.

Then, smooth rhetoric can make things easier to
consider free of distraction of the profane, or obscene,
and gentle jibes may be germane and gentlemanly,
or, "this is our _unch-bowl, let's keep it that way".

The idea of the Zollfrei metric is sort of a good idea,
it gets into approaches to the Dirichlet problem as
about the Poincare rough plane and even into the
definitions of continuous as with regards to the
definitions of differentiable, and as with regards to
measure theory and the integrable and measurable,
as for the measure problem and Dirichlet problem,
as with regards to continuum mechanics, those
classical mechanics, and micro- and macro-cosmic,
continuum mechanics, which most well reflects a
paucity in principle of "least action", "least resources",
the resources of mathematical structure, and as with
regards to the mathematical model and the physical
model, and that improving the mathematical model,
automatically equips the physical model.

... And keeping it real.

[rhertz]

Paul and I have a long history of exchanging insults, even when he's
more polite than I am.

Nevertheless, I appreciate Paul deeply.

I don't go any further than stupid, imbecile or trolling him about it's
time to retire.

I'm 70, LOL.

Regarding the rest of my posts to the open, you should have in mind that
I'm Argentinian and, in this sore country (at least around Buenos
Aires), everyone has been raised for decades in contexts of heavy online
aggressions, profanity and trolling.

I would say, and I'm very sorry for that, that Argentina is a very
hostile ground for anyone trying to post in local media. Either it is
politics, futbol (soccer for you), economy, general gossip, etc., you
are raised in a context of extreme aggression.

Argentinians, 99% of them (even with a college degree) are extremely
biased and passionate. The typical sequence is to be aggressive (badly),
and if you fall in the trap of answering, what follows is trolling.

We have made (I'm sorry for that) insults to become an art, and you can
verify it on Reddit about the fame of our country.

Yet, stupidity and narrow minds prevail over the vast majority of the
habitants of this corrupt country.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully
gullible.
"I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
Heaviside

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully
gullible.
"I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
Heaviside

Hey now, here it's only 3 + 1/2 dimensions, or a "ray" of time.

Continuity: is aggreged by curved space-time, because it
needs the _further_ definition, that it is a conceit,
to that space-time is a continuous manifold (and that
like Einstein later says, there is a "the time"), so that
the curving of space-time is only a projection of
the _local_, as with regards coordinates, the,
"coordinate-free", and "tensorial products",
of whatever form they may be.

Einstein in a sense has to defend himself from his followers,
and he does so in his maturation, with his earlier more
"practical" "success", and his later more fair "theory",
fair to himself and fair to theory, as with regards to
Einstein's model philosopher and model physicist, and
his notion of "success" of a theory, then as with regards
to Einstein's later theory, that includes a) that SR is
local and derivative and there's the "spacial" for it
and b) that GR is an _inertial_ system and a differential
system as parameterized by a "the time".

That there isn't yet really a practical success of that,
"Einstein's Relativity", has that yet not even Einstein's
own earlier theories, fulfill his later theory as of
"Out of My Later Years", Einstein's total field theory.

There's a lot of "right place, right time" involved,
then as with regards to for example Eddington and Freundlich,
examples.

That's not a defense of coat-tailing paper-hanging fudge-coating
theory-tweaking parameter-pickers, by any means, most of whom of course
are devout Einstein followers, as far as they think they know.


It is so that Heaviside and Larmor and Faraday and
so on have a lot going on with respect to Maxwell in
the middle, as with regards to E&M, while as with
regards to GR there's FitzGerald and for space-contraction,
"Lorentzian",
which keeps L-principle light's constancy while that
the linear stays Galilean-Lorentzian while the
rotational gets into Ehrenfest and Sagnac, as with
regards to of course still making ALL the data fit.

Of course it must be super-classical, and non-linear,
for example reading over Nayfeh and into Fritz London,
where Hooke's law and Clausius and Boltzmann peter out,
to be any kind of total field theory for example,
Mach-ian and Mach-ian and Mach-ian again, and
for realists.

Lorentzian, Laplacian, Lagrangian:
revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully
gullible.
"I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
Heaviside

Hey now, here it's only 3 + 1/2 dimensions, or a "ray" of time.
Continuity: is aggreged by curved space-time, because it
needs the _further_ definition, that it is a conceit,
to that space-time is a continuous manifold (and that
like Einstein later says, there is a "the time"), so that
the curving of space-time is only a projection of
the _local_, as with regards coordinates, the,
"coordinate-free", and "tensorial products",
of whatever form they may be.
Einstein in a sense has to defend himself from his followers,
and he does so in his maturation, with his earlier more
"practical" "success", and his later more fair "theory",
fair to himself and fair to theory, as with regards to
Einstein's model philosopher and model physicist, and
his notion of "success" of a theory, then as with regards
to Einstein's later theory, that includes a) that SR is
local and derivative and there's the "spacial" for it
and b) that GR is an _inertial_ system and a differential
system as parameterized by a "the time".
That there isn't yet really a practical success of that,
"Einstein's Relativity", has that yet not even Einstein's
own earlier theories, fulfill his later theory as of
"Out of My Later Years", Einstein's total field theory.
There's a lot of "right place, right time" involved,
then as with regards to for example Eddington and Freundlich,
examples.
That's not a defense of coat-tailing paper-hanging fudge-coating
theory-tweaking parameter-pickers, by any means, most of whom of course
are devout Einstein followers, as far as they think they know.
It is so that Heaviside and Larmor and Faraday and
so on have a lot going on with respect to Maxwell in
the middle, as with regards to E&M, while as with
regards to GR there's FitzGerald and for space-contraction,
"Lorentzian",
which keeps L-principle light's constancy while that
the linear stays Galilean-Lorentzian while the
rotational gets into Ehrenfest and Sagnac, as with
regards to of course still making ALL the data fit.
Of course it must be super-classical, and non-linear,
for example reading over Nayfeh and into Fritz London,
where Hooke's law and Clausius and Boltzmann peter out,
to be any kind of total field theory for example,
Mach-ian and Mach-ian and Mach-ian again, and
for realists.
revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs.

Here for example Freundlich writes up 1915's Einstein's theories,

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html

as with regards to that being about a hundred years ago.

"With respect to the postulate of continuity, this hypothesis seems
inconsistent, in so far as it introduces implicit statements about
finite distances into purely differential laws, in which only
line-elements occur; but it does not contradict the postulate.
The postulate of the relativity of all motion adopts a different
attitude towards the possibility of giving the line-element the
Euclidean form in particular."

"The laws of physics must, therefore, preserve their form in passing
from one such system to another...."

("Theory of Gravitation", 3.a.)

That's a great little paper, I don't recall reading it before.
It sort of reminds me of Maclaurin backing Newton, where with
regards to calculus, Maclaurin wrote Newton's calculus, its
formal outline.



"To realize this fully, we must revert
to the foundations of geometry,.... Riemann ...."

Well, yeah, you blame Riemann and Lebesgue for that.


"Algebraic geometers", may, pick to sort of be one of
either "algebraic GEOMETERS", or, "ALGEBRAIC geometers",
and, kind of like beginning with "the space" or "the word",
as for example is given as the beginnings in the beginnings.
Here it's an algebraic GEOMETRY, in so few words. (Then
a strong metonymy, ..., ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY, though at some
point "philosophy" _is_ involved, if there merest and least.)


The modern sky-survey, includes: apparent super-luminal
motion. Thus, it's data.


"Whereas, then, the postulate of continuity (cf. page 20)
seemed to render it only advisable not to introduce the
narrowing assumptions of the Euclidean determination of measure,
the principle of general relativity no longer leaves us any choice."

OR:

Now, this is a conceit because in each "local" "frame" in "space",
there's a metric what implies a norm and it's quite all Euclidean
as with regards to "space warp" and what is "frames in spaces and
spaces in frames, Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen", yet Euclidean.

The Planckian then what gets all involved because SR was invented
after electron physics was assumed and before running constants
where introduced, where "there are eventually either no straight
lines or no right angles after discretization the quantization
which is de-normalization", that that's what "de-normalization"
_is_ with regards to the renormalizability problem wrapper as
new these days as the old measure problem wrapped as the new
measure problem, illustrates that everything's yet very
"linear", in these.


"However necessary and fruitful a mental experiment may often be, there
is the ever-present danger that an abstraction which has been carried
unduly far loses sight of the physical contents of its underlying notions."

So, "the severe abstraction" is what's usually called "successful",
because, controlled it's simply repeatable and thusly indubitable.
Yet, ..., that's a reading of Freundlich _exactly the opposite_
of what he inteded, with regards to the "philosophy" or mental
reasoning, and what's "observable" as with regards to that
light's deemed the instrument, and there was no notion yet of
either neutrino detectors, or, gravitational wave detectors.

Also de Broglie and later Bohm and Aspect-type experiments
were quite a ways up the line as with regards to Huygens,
Fizeau, and Fresnel.

So anyways Freundlich's paper there is a great exposition of
Einstein's theories of SR and GR in about 1915, and, I think
that pretty much anybody who says "Einstein's SR and GR" without
further qualification, would necessarily follow it.

They'd be unqualified to unqualifiedly follow it,
yet, they'd be unqualified not to follow it,
then as with regards to the qualifications of their qualifications.


Then he accentuates the equivalency principle and that
may be nice and terrestrial yet it's not necessary.


So, if you have issues with Einstein's SR and GR of 1915,
then, you should be able to point to them in Freundlich's paper.



Freundlich was wrong about the red-shift and got scooped
on the Mercury picture in the eclipse, though he was
working off what Hubble made of red-shift, then it's
similar for Einstein he lined up with electron physics
then really worked into "severe abstraction" as with
regards to energy and about what was going on with
old QM then stochastic QM if then that he had to open
up after de Broglie to keep up - anyways though anything
you claim to assign to Einstein, circa 1915, you should
be able to point to in Freundlich's paper there.


I have a theory starting with mathematics,
so physics is sort of a side-show.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully
gullible.
"I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
Heaviside

Hey now, here it's only 3 + 1/2 dimensions, or a "ray" of time.
Continuity: is aggreged by curved space-time, because it
needs the _further_ definition, that it is a conceit,
to that space-time is a continuous manifold (and that
like Einstein later says, there is a "the time"), so that
the curving of space-time is only a projection of
the _local_, as with regards coordinates, the,
"coordinate-free", and "tensorial products",
of whatever form they may be.
Einstein in a sense has to defend himself from his followers,
and he does so in his maturation, with his earlier more
"practical" "success", and his later more fair "theory",
fair to himself and fair to theory, as with regards to
Einstein's model philosopher and model physicist, and
his notion of "success" of a theory, then as with regards
to Einstein's later theory, that includes a) that SR is
local and derivative and there's the "spacial" for it
and b) that GR is an _inertial_ system and a differential
system as parameterized by a "the time".
That there isn't yet really a practical success of that,
"Einstein's Relativity", has that yet not even Einstein's
own earlier theories, fulfill his later theory as of
"Out of My Later Years", Einstein's total field theory.
There's a lot of "right place, right time" involved,
then as with regards to for example Eddington and Freundlich,
examples.
That's not a defense of coat-tailing paper-hanging fudge-coating
theory-tweaking parameter-pickers, by any means, most of whom of course
are devout Einstein followers, as far as they think they know.
It is so that Heaviside and Larmor and Faraday and
so on have a lot going on with respect to Maxwell in
the middle, as with regards to E&M, while as with
regards to GR there's FitzGerald and for space-contraction,
"Lorentzian",
which keeps L-principle light's constancy while that
the linear stays Galilean-Lorentzian while the
rotational gets into Ehrenfest and Sagnac, as with
regards to of course still making ALL the data fit.
Of course it must be super-classical, and non-linear,
for example reading over Nayfeh and into Fritz London,
where Hooke's law and Clausius and Boltzmann peter out,
to be any kind of total field theory for example,
Mach-ian and Mach-ian and Mach-ian again, and
for realists.
revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs.

Here for example Freundlich writes up 1915's Einstein's theories,
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html
as with regards to that being about a hundred years ago.
"With respect to the postulate of continuity, this hypothesis seems
inconsistent, in so far as it introduces implicit statements about
finite distances into purely differential laws, in which only
line-elements occur; but it does not contradict the postulate.
The postulate of the relativity of all motion adopts a different
attitude towards the possibility of giving the line-element the
Euclidean form in particular."
"The laws of physics must, therefore, preserve their form in passing
from one such system to another...."
("Theory of Gravitation", 3.a.)
That's a great little paper, I don't recall reading it before.
It sort of reminds me of Maclaurin backing Newton, where with
regards to calculus, Maclaurin wrote Newton's calculus, its
formal outline.
"To realize this fully, we must revert
to the foundations of geometry,.... Riemann ...."
Well, yeah, you blame Riemann and Lebesgue for that.
"Algebraic geometers", may, pick to sort of be one of
either "algebraic GEOMETERS", or, "ALGEBRAIC geometers",
and, kind of like beginning with "the space" or "the word",
as for example is given as the beginnings in the beginnings.
Here it's an algebraic GEOMETRY, in so few words. (Then
a strong metonymy, ..., ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY, though at some
point "philosophy" _is_ involved, if there merest and least.)
The modern sky-survey, includes: apparent super-luminal
motion. Thus, it's data.
"Whereas, then, the postulate of continuity (cf. page 20)
seemed to render it only advisable not to introduce the
narrowing assumptions of the Euclidean determination of measure,
the principle of general relativity no longer leaves us any choice."
Now, this is a conceit because in each "local" "frame" in "space",
there's a metric what implies a norm and it's quite all Euclidean
as with regards to "space warp" and what is "frames in spaces and
spaces in frames, Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen", yet Euclidean.
The Planckian then what gets all involved because SR was invented
after electron physics was assumed and before running constants
where introduced, where "there are eventually either no straight
lines or no right angles after discretization the quantization
which is de-normalization", that that's what "de-normalization"
_is_ with regards to the renormalizability problem wrapper as
new these days as the old measure problem wrapped as the new
measure problem, illustrates that everything's yet very
"linear", in these.
"However necessary and fruitful a mental experiment may often be, there
is the ever-present danger that an abstraction which has been carried
unduly far loses sight of the physical contents of its underlying notions."
So, "the severe abstraction" is what's usually called "successful",
because, controlled it's simply repeatable and thusly indubitable.
Yet, ..., that's a reading of Freundlich _exactly the opposite_
of what he inteded, with regards to the "philosophy" or mental
reasoning, and what's "observable" as with regards to that
light's deemed the instrument, and there was no notion yet of
either neutrino detectors, or, gravitational wave detectors.
Also de Broglie and later Bohm and Aspect-type experiments
were quite a ways up the line as with regards to Huygens,
Fizeau, and Fresnel.
So anyways Freundlich's paper there is a great exposition of
Einstein's theories of SR and GR in about 1915, and, I think
that pretty much anybody who says "Einstein's SR and GR" without
further qualification, would necessarily follow it.
They'd be unqualified to unqualifiedly follow it,
yet, they'd be unqualified not to follow it,
then as with regards to the qualifications of their qualifications.
Then he accentuates the equivalency principle and that
may be nice and terrestrial yet it's not necessary.
So, if you have issues with Einstein's SR and GR of 1915,
then, you should be able to point to them in Freundlich's paper.
Freundlich was wrong about the red-shift and got scooped
on the Mercury picture in the eclipse, though he was
working off what Hubble made of red-shift, then it's
similar for Einstein he lined up with electron physics
then really worked into "severe abstraction" as with
regards to energy and about what was going on with
old QM then stochastic QM if then that he had to open
up after de Broglie to keep up - anyways though anything
you claim to assign to Einstein, circa 1915, you should
be able to point to in Freundlich's paper there.
I have a theory starting with mathematics,
so physics is sort of a side-show.

If you haven't read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years"
here I plow through it.

"Reading from Einstein's _Out of My Later Years_"

There are no "advertisements" involved.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²
Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment,
the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE, like in the 2017
Mudrak theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on
Galileo GNSS.

https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf
Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r) + ((aΩ)² − v²)/2c²
The gravitational term is: Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r)
Which is _very_ different from Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²

So I caught you in the lie that Einstein's 1911 equation
was used in Mudrak's paper.

Post by rhertz
Paul, how fragile your memory is!

Both your an my memories are just fine.

You haven't forgotten that I caught you in a lie,
but you are trying to divert the attention from it!

Post by rhertz
You forgot that I was the one who noticed you about the existence of the
Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!

Of course I haven't forgotten.

Post by rhertz
Mudrak (an EE like you) was full of shit and anger when he wrote that
paper. He was MAD because the Galileo Consortium decided TO NOT
INCORPORATE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS INTO THE GROUND RECEIVERS. They
left the "responsability" to the receiver's manufacturers, WHICH DIDN'T
WANT TO FOLLOW GR.

You seem very confused. :-D
"RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS INTO THE GROUND RECEIVERS".

The "corrections in the ground receivers" are done in exactly
the same way in GPS and Galileo.
The monitor stations upload parameters in a correction polynomial
to the SV. The SV downloads these parameters to the receiver.
The receiver calculate the correction to add to the SV-clock time
received from the SV.

You can read all about it in the Interface Specification Documents
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo_OS_SIS_ICD_v2.1.pdf

I hardly think Mudrak was "full of anger" because the corrections
were done as specified in the Interface Control Document. :-D

And I can't imagine what your mean by the statement:
"They left the "responsability" to the receiver's manufacturers,
WHICH DIDN'T WANT TO FOLLOW GR."

And I bet you don't know either.

------------------

But do I remember that you was the one who noticed you about
the existence of the Mudrak's paper, 3 years ago!

Yes I remember it very well:


05.09.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|
|> Den 05.09.2021 08:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
|>
|> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03404697.pdf
|
| Thanks for a very interesting paper!
|
|
| And this paper answers the question we have been wondering about:
| "Is the satellite clock corrected for relativistic effects?"
|
| Let's quote from the paper:
| "At the time of writing, the frequency of the Galileo
| satellite clocks is not corrected to compensate
| the relativistic shift, unlike GPS. Nevertheless,
| the capability to adjust the satellite clock frequency,
| e.g. in order to align it to GST, is available. Galileo
| onboard clocks will be periodically aligned to GST both
| and phase and frequency to maintain these parameters
| within the limits acceptable from the system operations
| point of view. Furthermore, as an experiment, the relativistic
| frequency shift of GSAT0102 (PRN E12) was corrected in orbit,
| after launch."
|
| I quote from a previous conversation:
|
| | On July 15, 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| |> Den 14.07.2021 05:56, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
|
| |>> A number of years ago, Paul Andersen had given a link
| |>> to a description of the tunable frequency synthesizers
| |>> used in current GPS satellites.
| |>> Although the earliest GPS satellites could not be
| |>> fine-tuned, current satellites -are- tunable.
| |>> The nominal frequency offset mentioned in the GPS
| |>> ICD is merely that: a -nominal- frequency offset.
| |>>
| |>
| |> The paper at the mentioned link doesn't seem to be
| |> available any more, but here is another paper about
| |> the same issue:
| |>
| |> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a485237.pdf
| |>
| |> "The purpose of the GPS Block II-R TKS shown in Figure 1
| |> is to tune the 10.23 MHz digitally controlled VCXO to produce
| |> the GPS navigation signal with the timing accuracy of RAFS.
| |> By linking the VCXO to the RAFS using a control loop controlled
| |> by software, it is possible to precisely adjust the frequency
| |> and phase of the TKS output, to cancel drift of the RAFS once
| |> it has been characterized, and to detect any anomalous RAFS
| |> frequency or phase excursions."
| |>
| |> TKS = Time Keeping System
| |> RAFS = Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard
| |>
| |> I think such a TKS has been in all Block II satellites,
| |> and I strongly suspect that there is a similar system
| |> in Galileo satellites.
|
| So I was right. It is a "similar system" in the Galileo
| satellites that make it possible to tune the frequency
| after launch. And the satellite clock frequency is adjusted
| by the factor -4.7219E-10 to align it to the GST (Galileo
| System Time).

And the rate of the Galileo SV clocks not only can be,
but are adjusted by the factor -4.7219E-10

| 06.09.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:

|> Open this link:
|> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
|> see fig.8 page 11.
|>
|> The clock offset (a_f1) will be the dominating factor
|> in the clock correction.
|>
|> The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has been almost constant
|> ≈ -500 μS since April 2019 to January 2021,
|> The clock has been ≈500 μS ahead of System time all the time.
|>
|> The GSAT0220/E33 clock correction has been almost constant
|> ≈ +380 μS since February 2019 to January 2021,
|> The clock has been ≈380 μS behind System time all the time.
|>
|> The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
|> ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
|> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.1 μS/day
|>
|> The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
|> ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 420 μS in January 2021.
|> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.5 μS/day
|>
|> So the clock frequencies must have been corrected by
|> the factor -4.7219E-10.

You probably don't understand what I am talking about,
but I won't bother to explain.

You invariably stay clueless whatever I say.

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.

[rhertz]

************************************************************************

Post by rhertz
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.


--
Mikko
***********************************************************************

Actually, those "Better ways to present what was already known have also
been developed." are ALL THE SAME, expressed in similar but equivalent
ways to the 1911 Postulate. Examples:

1) Any electromagnetic beam directed from any height towards the Earth's
ground GAINS ENERGY (blue-shifting) in the proportion:

ΔE/E = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)


2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Earth's ground) by a factor:

Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)

with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.


At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
ANY ground station.

In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory
in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.

Digital technology was unknown 100 years ago (even 70 years ago). There
is NO mathematical explanation about what happens when you TRANSFORM
analog information of EM radiation into digital info (A.K.A digital
counters of BOTH CLOCKS.

If you want a VALID PROOF, put a GIANT DIGITAL DISPLAY on board, which
could be seen from Earth with a telescope. Then, using a telescope and
discounting the time EM energy takes to reach ground, you CAN CERTAINLY
compare both clocks or both frequencies (from orbiting satellite and
from ground lab).

Such experiment would ELIMINATE the uncertainty of PERCEPTION, isn't it?
But this IS NOT CONVENIENT, so nothing like this has been attempted.
Another way would be to ENCODE the digital data of any given satellite,
and DOWNLOAD IT to the lab (much simpler).

WHY THIS IS NOT DONE OR PUBLISHED (if it's being done in the last 50
years)?

MYSTERY. The fairy tale of relativity has to be protected by all means
within relativistic circles.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Δf/f = Φ/c² =  GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

This is wrong.

Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.

Some data:
Geocentric gravitational constant GM = 3.986004418⋅10¹⁴ m³/s²
Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
Sidereal day tₛ = 86164.0905 s
Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m


Clock C₀ is stationary on the geoid at equator, longitude 0.
The proper time of this clock will for one rotation of
the Earth be τ₀ = 86164.0905 s

Clock C₁ is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The orbital period p is half a sidereal day, p = 43082.04525 s
The radius of the orbit is then r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m.

The proper time of this clock to make two orbits around
the Earth will be:

τ₁ = (1 + (GM/c²)⋅(1/R-1/r)+(v₀²-v₁²)/2c²)⋅τ₀

where:
The speed of clock C₀ in the ECI frame v₀ = 2πR/tₛ = 465.1011 m/s
The speed of clock C₁ in the ECI frame v₁ = 2πr/p = 3873.8291 m/s

τ₁ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)⋅τ₀ = 86164.0905 s + 38.49 μs

Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.

dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.

Post by rhertz
At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
ANY ground station.

A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.

And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.

This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
if it according to you is impossible.

Since the clock C₁ has exactly the same orbital data as a GPS satellite,
dτ₁/τ₀ is the same as a GPS satellite where the rate of the clock
is not adjusted down.

Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

It confirmed GR's prediction.

Post by rhertz
In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory
in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.

What an idiotic idea. :-D

t = 1234 s are digital data

How would you store analog data?
As a voltage in a capacitor?
Would that keep the the theory pure?

Post by rhertz
Digital technology was unknown 100 years ago (even 70 years ago). There
is NO mathematical explanation about what happens when you TRANSFORM
analog information of EM radiation into digital info (A.K.A digital
counters of BOTH CLOCKS.

Richard Hertz's mind works in mysterious ways. :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Δf/f = Φ/c² =  GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

This is wrong.
Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.

Anyone can check GPS - neither your
delusional scenarios nor your SI idiocy
have anything in common with real clocks,
real measurements or real whatever.

[rhertz]

Paul:
******************************************************************************
Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.


dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.

************************************************************************************

APPEAR? You are using my expressions 100%: APPEAR; IS PERCEIVED TO BE;
... You are a funny guy.

Paul:
******************************************************************************

Post by rhertz
At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
ANY ground station.

A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.


And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.


This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
if it according to you is impossible.

**********************************************************************************

The corrections ARE NECESSARY TWICE A DAY in order to correct every
onboard atomic clock, so the SLIPS due to flight perturbations, cosmic
and EM radiation PLUS natural short-term instabilities on each one. You
should know better about short-term jumps in ANY ATOMIC CLOCK, which (if
not corrected) would make each clock frequency randomly drift from the
others. And, as a digital clock is a counter, those instabilities
ACCUMULATE. So, from Earth, corrections are made constantly to have the
entire network in sync all the time.


Paul:
******************************************************************************
Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf


It confirmed GR's prediction.

***********************************************************************************

WERE YOU THERE WITNESSING THAT CRAPPY TEST? NO! YOU JUST BELIEVE IT.


Paul:
******************************************************************************
How would you store analog data?
As a voltage in a capacitor?
Would that keep the the theory pure?
************************************************************************************

Before high speed digital counters (started around 1961, at 10 Mhz top),
there were analog computers for more than 60 years (since 1900). HUGE
and very costly ANALOG COMPUTERS, capable of iterations and recursion.

Data was stored in accurate mechanical springs, LIKE the ones used in
pocket and wristwatches TO STORE DATA, plus mechanical latches.

You REALLY need to read about history of science, relativistic viking.

Do you pretend TO TELL EVERYONE HERE that, before digital counters, to
believe in relativity was an ACT OF FAITH for 50 years? You are
confirming that relativists are really a bunch of retarded.


Probably, you and them evolved from Neardenthal sub-humans, that did
mate with some Cro-magnon people.

And that happened in continental Europe, you know? In the forests there,
the two species mated.

Did you verify your DNA, to trace broken links? Because that could
explain a lot, Paul.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

This is wrong.
Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.
Geocentric gravitational constant GM = 3.986004418⋅10¹⁴ m³/s²
Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
Sidereal day tₛ = 86164.0905 s
Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m
Clock C₀ is stationary on the geoid at equator, longitude 0.
The proper time of this clock will for one rotation of
the Earth be τ₀ = 86164.0905 s
Clock C₁ is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The orbital period p is half a sidereal day, p = 43082.04525 s
The radius of the orbit is then r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m.
The proper time of this clock to make two orbits around
τ₁ = (1 + (GM/c²)⋅(1/R-1/r)+(v₀²-v₁²)/2c²)⋅τ₀
The speed of clock C₀ in the ECI frame v₀ = 2πR/tₛ = 465.1011 m/s
The speed of clock C₁ in the ECI frame v₁ = 2πr/p = 3873.8291 m/s
τ₁ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)⋅τ₀ = 86164.0905 s + 38.49 μs
Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.
dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.

APPEAR? You are using my expressions 100%: APPEAR; IS PERCEIVED TO BE;
... You are a funny guy.

Trying to divert the attention form the fact that I showed you wrong?

Your equation for a satellite with orbital time half a sidereal day
would give:
Δf/f = 5.2839⋅10⁻¹⁰, the correct is: Δf/f = 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰

Your equation is wrong because it doesn't contain the kinematic term.
You can't ignore that for a satellite!

Your statement:
"The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower"
is not the same as my statement:
"C₁ appear to run faster than C₀"

"slower" isn't 100% the same as "faster"!

Your statement is 100% wrong.
My statement is 100% correct.

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
ANY ground station.

A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.
And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.
This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
if it according to you is impossible.

The corrections ARE NECESSARY TWICE A DAY in order to correct every
onboard atomic clock, so the SLIPS due to flight perturbations, cosmic
and EM radiation PLUS natural short-term instabilities on each one. You
should know better about short-term jumps in ANY ATOMIC CLOCK, which (if
not corrected) would make each clock frequency randomly drift from the
others. And, as a digital clock is a counter, those instabilities
ACCUMULATE. So, from Earth, corrections are made constantly to have the
entire network in sync all the time.

The SV clock is not corrected while the SV is in service.

I have told you before:
The monitor stations upload parameters in a correction polynomial
to the SV, typically once a day. The SV downloads these parameters
to the receiver. The receiver calculate the correction to add to
the SV-clock time received from the SV.

One parameter in the correction polynomial is the "clock offset".
It simply says how wrong the clock is, and is added to the SV-clock
time received from the SV.
In the GPS, the number of bits in the register containing the parameter
is so that the "clock offset" must be less than ~1 ms, or the register
will overflow. That means that the SV clock must be less than 1 ms
off sync.

If the SV clock was not corrected by the GR correction (1-4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)
the "clock offset" register would overflow after less than 25 days.
But the SV clocks can run for years without corrections.

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Since the clock C₁ has exactly the same orbital data as a GPS satellite,
dτ₁/τ₀ is the same as a GPS satellite where the rate of the clock
is not adjusted down.
Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
It confirmed GR's prediction.

WERE YOU THERE WITNESSING THAT CRAPPY TEST? NO! YOU JUST BELIEVE IT.

What a stupid remark! :-D

Of course I believe it.
This is not a test of GR, it is a test of a GPS satellite.
The engineers that built the satellite were not convinced
that the GR prediction was right, so the satellite was
launched with no correction, but it contained a frequency
synthesiser which could be switched on and lower the frequency
by Δf/f = -4.45⋅10⁻¹⁰
It was run for some time without correction.
See fig 10. It shows what was measured during 6 days.
The frequency was Δf/f = 4.425⋅10⁻¹⁰ too high.
When they switched on the synthesiser they measured
Δf/f = -3.1⋅10⁻¹², see fig 21.

The engineers who made this report didn't care if the GR
prediction was right or wrong, their only concern was to get
the satellite to work. They found that the GR-correction was
necessary to make the satellite work.

It is ridiculous to claim that they were member of a MAFIA,
and profit from it, because the different results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity.

You must be pretty stupid if you don't believe it.

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory
in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.

What an idiotic idea. 😂
t = 1234 s are digital data
How would you store analog data?
As a voltage in a capacitor?
Would that keep the the theory pure?

Before high speed digital counters (started around 1961, at 10 Mhz top),
there were analog computers for more than 60 years (since 1900). HUGE
and very costly ANALOG COMPUTERS, capable of iterations and recursion.
Data was stored in accurate mechanical springs, LIKE the ones used in
pocket and wristwatches TO STORE DATA, plus mechanical latches.
You REALLY need to read about history of science, relativistic viking.
Do you pretend TO TELL EVERYONE HERE that, before digital counters, to
believe in relativity was an ACT OF FAITH for 50 years? You are
confirming that relativists are really a bunch of retarded.
Probably, you and them evolved from Neardenthal sub-humans, that did
mate with some Cro-magnon people.
And that happened in continental Europe, you know? In the forests there,
the two species mated.
Did you verify your DNA, to trace broken links? Because that could
explain a lot, Paul.

Is this irrelevant babble supposed to be a defence of this
incredible stupid statement of yours?

"In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative
difference in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are
sent back to the ground lab for comparisons, because it violates
the purity of the theory in this way: Relativity formulae are
ANALOG, while data stored in orbiting clocks is DIGITAL."

Maybe you will another attempt to explain why this statement is true?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: No one doubts the clocks function differently in space. We don't
think relativity is necessary for the calibrations.

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
************************************************************************

Post by rhertz
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
************************************************************************

Post by rhertz
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light

After 1911 much has been found out about gravitation and photons.
Better ways to present what was already known have also been developed.

Actually, those "Better ways to present what was already known have also
been developed." are ALL THE SAME, expressed in similar but equivalent
ways to the 1911 Postulate.

Of couse an presentation must be essentially the same as another
presentation of the same thing. If there are differences other
that presentational it is no longer a presentation of the same
thing.