Discussion:
Einstein's doctrine for GR succeeded to be installed within the atom, in Germany.
Add Reply
Richard Hertz
2021-10-11 05:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Relativists finally succeeded to introduce Einstein's 1911 proposal of gravity
affecting the behavior of electrons in atoms, forcing corrections on hyperfine
transitions within cesium atoms in atomic clocks. At least in Germany, and at
least theoretically.

--------------------- Excerpt from Einstein 1911 paper ------------------------------------
§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

f the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K′ in S2 toward
S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, relative to S1, at
its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical
clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 . (1+γh/c²)
..............
(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

--------------------------------------------------- End of excerpt ------------------------------------

From (2a), is derived that Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift, which Einstein applied to his "light-generator".

The definition of a second, established (BIPM 1998) as the base unit of
time for the International System of Units (SI) is:

https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
-------------------------------------------------
The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency Δν_Cs, the unperturbed
ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to
be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to 1/s.
--------------------------------------------------

This is very sub-atomic and specific, indeed.

Standard cesium clock has a typical relative frequency instability per day
about ± 10E-13, implying that it will keep time to within one second over
25,000 years. Improved versions of cesium fountain clock achieve, since
2011, accuracy within ± 10E-16. These new generation of Cs clocks can
last 25 million years before a second is lost (and life as we know is gone).

Now, the funny part when it comes to worldwide timekeeping by national
agencies, like NIST or USNO (USA), PTB (Germany), OP (France), NICT (Japan), SU (Russia), NTSC (China), etc. (all subrogated to BIMP), is that
keep the difference between the UTC (BIMP) below ± 10 nanoseconds.

However, as it's available at the German PTB site,

https://www.ptb.de/cms/en.html

TAI (Temps Atomique International), calculated by the International
Bureau for Weights and Measures (BIPM), as well as UTC (Coordinated
Universal Time), also kept as master source from BIPM, HAVE TO BE
ADJUSTED for Einstenian gravitational time dilatation.

This is because BIMP averages the time of about 400 atomic clocks from
50 different sites around the world, which are located at different heights
compared to the average ground level.

Excerpt from the German site:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.

In order to compensate for the gravitational time dilatation, the rates of atomic clocks located at an altitude h above sea level are corrected by a relative amount of -1.09.10E-16 (h/m).

The PTB clocks for example are located at heights of h = 78 until 79 m
so that the relative rate correction is about -8.6.10E-15. This takes into
account that the atomic second intervals realised by the PTB clocks are
shorter by 8.6.10E-15 than the SI second produced by a caesium clock
located on the geoid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it doesn't matter that national timekeepers have best values for
differences around ± 10E-9 sec (at best) between them, or that best
values for national timekeeping accuracy/day are in the order of
± 10E-13 to ± 10E-16, which has a dispersion between 10,000:1 and
1,000,000:1 depending on how modern are their atomic clocks.

EVERY SINGLE atomic clock in the world SHOULD BE corrected by a
relative amount of -1.09.10E-16 (h/m), depending on the height above
the average ground level for the geode that Earth is.

Then, relativists have succeeded bringing GR within the atom, and the
genial Einstein predicted this by 1911, when nor he neither any other
physicist HAD A FVCKING IDEA of what an atom was and, much less,
about hyperfine transitions 30 years before even anyone started thinking
about them.

And, what is more RIDICULOUS, is that the effect is more than 10,000
below any perceived difference within atomic clocks that BIMP control.

I wonder why such level of corrections (1.09.10E-16 . h) are needed, and
how come a 110 crazy idea has entered into the quantum world officially.

If it's not to perpetuate Einstein's role in modern physics, I don't know
what it is. Any arbitrary perturbation of NATURE has a greater impact
that 10E-16 . h, even when sites that host atomic clocks are stabilized
for temperature, humidity and shielded against electromagnetic sources.

I bet that a fat man coming into any of those rooms influence the clocks
more than this. Not to mention earthquakes, continental drift, Moon's
erratic orbits, planet's alineation, Cosmic Radiation showers, magnetic poles shifting, etc.

Einsteinian apology at its best.
Dono.
2021-10-11 05:15:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip cretinisms<
You are a very sick man, Dick. Need to get a long cold shower, get swaddled in the straightjacket and take your anti=psychotic meds. On second thoughts, thanks for the DAILY entertainment!
Richard Hertz
2021-10-11 06:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In the case that it's not clear about what I'm writing about, check this 1911 formula:

"From (2a), is derived that Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift, which Einstein applied to his "light-generator". "

G.Me/c² = 4.435028039E-03 mt
Re = 6378136.55 mt
Re + 1 mt = 6378137.55 mt

Δf/f = Φ/c² = G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/(Re+1) ) = 1.090206272.10E-16 (value for ΔRe = 1 mt)

And the formula used by the German PTB is:

Correction by a relative amount of -1.09.10E-16 . h (h given in meters above the average ground level)

As it can be seen, h is an approximation of (1/Re - 1/R'e) = (R'e - Re)/R'e.Re ≈ h/Re

So, the 1911 "correction" is:

Δf/f = Φ/c² = G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/(Re+1) ) ≈ (G.Me/(c².Re)) . h ≈ 1.09.10E-16 . h

The 1911 formula is EXACTLY THE SAME that the one used in German PTB 110 years later.

A tribute to Einstein's formula 100 anniversary?
Richard Hertz
2021-10-11 16:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The time scales TAI and EAL
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/ag-441/realisation-of-legal-time-in-germany/the-time-scales-tai-and-eal.html

Quote:

"The PTB clocks for example are located at heights of h = 78 until 79 m
so that the relative rate correction is about -8.6.10E-15. This takes into
account that the atomic second intervals realised by the PTB clocks are
shorter by 8.6.10E-15 than the SI second produced by a caesium clock
located on the geoid."

Being the BIMP definition for 1 second:

"Δν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom,
to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to 1/s."

means that each cycle is 1/9192631770 seconds or 0.108782776 nanoseconds/cycle.

If corrections are needed below the 6th. decimal place (8.6 Femtoseconds per second), how is it done?

Or, how come corrections of 2.7121 .10E-07 seconds/year are introduced within a count of 31,536,000 seconds per year?

Serious doubt.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-11 19:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In the case of Japan NICT (equivalent to German PTB), they are more realistic about keeping time:

https://jjy.nict.go.jp/mission/page3-e.html

"The UTC (NICT) is generated and maintained in order to keep the difference between the UTC and the UTC (NICT)
below ± 10 nanoseconds (1 nanosecond = 1/1,000,000,000 second)."

This objective provides an accuracy of 3.17 . 10E-16/year in UTC timekeeping, compared to BIMP UTC (France).


What happens with Germany and the claim about relativistic corrections in their PTB institution?

Corrections of 2.7121 . 10E-07 seconds/year in their national institution for UTC timekeeping is an obvious exaggeration.

Or this is a subtle tribute, from relativists working there, to Einstein's doctrine?
carl eto
2021-10-11 20:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
GPS (Global Positioning System) is used to justify the measurement of the velocity of light but the GPS is produced by the intensity differences of the satellites radio signals not by the velocity of the radio signals since the electrons of the GPS system that are propagating at the velocity of 10^6 m/s cannot measure the time difference of radio waves propagating at the velocity of light.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-11 23:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As this stupid formula, derived in 1911 by Einstein using Δm = m.ΔΦ/c² as gravitational mass embedded into gravitational potential:

"From (2a), is derived that Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift"

is still used 110 years after (GPS, PTB) for time and frequency measurement purposes, literally challenging the knowledge in QM and
evolving theories here on Earth, I don't see any problem by applying it IN THE MOON.

Example:

If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
geoid Earth then, a given cesium atomic clock that provides such frequency should:

1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).

2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.


I wonder how come will relativists to manage a UTC or equivalent for every celestial body in the Solar System.

Tuning up and tuning down atomic clocks at each body, for Earth as a center of the SS-UTC? And how to time-sync multi-conference
between Earth, Moon, Mars and a traveling spacecraft in 40 years?

See, Einstein's acolytes, what do you cause? Only CHAOS. Keep doing a good job, retarded relativists.

No time for you!

Or, maybe, t' = t will prevail?
Dono.
2021-10-12 02:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Or, maybe, t' = t will prevail?
Crank Richard Hertz' wet dreams
Richard Hertz
2021-10-12 02:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:55:31 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>
Post by Richard Hertz
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
The formula above is wrong. The correct expression is:


Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G.Me/(c².Re). (1 - Mm/Me . Re/Rm) = 6.63942428 .10E-10
f(moon) = 9192631763.8966 Hz and Δf = - 6.1034 Hz

If Mm = Me and Rm = Re, Δf/f = 0. Still a big difference. I wonder if long term stability is conserved below 10E-13.
---------------------------------------------------------

G.Me/(c².Re) = 6.95348556 . 10E-10
Mm/Me = 0.0123
Re/Rm = 3.671
Paul B. Andersen
2021-10-12 07:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D

The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.

So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance
one second per second.

On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite,
on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-12 09:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Michael Moroney
2021-10-12 17:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong. No strict definition then. The best time sources of 1905 were
the railroads, each individual railroad probably had their own master
clock. I don't know how it worked in Europe, but the railroads in the US
had their own time zones for their schedules (national time zones didn't
exist yet, railroads created them) and of course they would be somewhat
based on solar time -- of somewhere (not strictly since solar noon
varies throughout a year). Also with each other, enough so to arrange
interline schedules or crossing lines, but crossing lines were guarded
by signals anyway.

Nothing in SR or GR depends on the wobbly rotation of some space rock,
nor should it since time does not depend on such rotation.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-12 18:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1862 stated that "All men of science are agreed to use the second of mean solar time as the unit of time."[12] BAAS formally proposed the CGS system in 1874, although this system was gradually replaced over the next 70 years by MKS units. Both the CGS and MKS systems used the same second as their base unit of time. MKS was adopted internationally during the 1940s, defining the second as 1⁄86,400 of a mean solar day.
"
Sorry, stupid Mike, your lies won't change anything.
Michael Moroney
2021-10-12 19:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1862 stated that "All men of science are agreed to use the second of mean solar time as the unit of time."[12] BAAS formally proposed the CGS system in 1874, although this system was gradually replaced over the next 70 years by MKS units. Both the CGS and MKS systems used the same second as their base unit of time. MKS was adopted internationally during the 1940s, defining the second as 1⁄86,400 of a mean solar day.
"
Quoting Wikipedia, Woz?

I was talking about the unit of time measurement, the second. Not "what
time is it". Notice the same article states the second couldn't be
measured until the pendulum clock was invented. So the second wasn't
even measurable from solar clocks, even if anyone could divide the
minute by 60. THIS is what is important to relativity. In addition,
the wobbly rotation of some space rock isn't mentioned in relativity,
only TIME is. If said space rock wobbles (like what happened during the
2004 earthquake/tsunami) did TIME itself change or only that space rock?

If Einstein were around he'd tell you that in 1905 the earth rotation
was used only because it was the best clock around then to MEASURE time,
long term. The difference between accuracy and precision in 1905, as in
Earth as a clock vs. a pendulum clock which can measure to the second
unlike the Earth. Also he'd tell you atomic clocks are much better than
wobbly space rocks (or pendulum clocks) to MEASURE time these days. And
he'd kick your ass, just because.

Maybe you need to learn why different measures to display time exist,
TAI, vs. UTC, vs UT1.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-12 20:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1862 stated that "All men of science are agreed to use the second of mean solar time as the unit of time."[12] BAAS formally proposed the CGS system in 1874, although this system was gradually replaced over the next 70 years by MKS units. Both the CGS and MKS systems used the same second as their base unit of time. MKS was adopted internationally during the 1940s, defining the second as 1⁄86,400 of a mean solar day.
"
Quoting Wikipedia, Woz?
Yes, stupid Mike; how smart of you to notice after I wrote it
directly.
Post by Michael Moroney
I was talking about the unit of time measurement, the second
Talk about whatever you want, stupid Mike. Your moronic lies
won't change anything. To evaluate the real value of the
insane fartings of your idiot guru - one has to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Post by Michael Moroney
If Einstein were around he'd tell you that in 1905 the earth rotation
was used only because it was the best clock around then to MEASURE time,
It was and (as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI) it is still. And - whatever
the reasons were, your idiot guru was too dumb keep his mumble
consistent with the definitions he was using. Yes, he was. It often
happens to idiots underestimating common sense (this collection
of prejudices).
Michael Moroney
2021-10-13 00:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1862 stated that "All men of science are agreed to use the second of mean solar time as the unit of time."[12] BAAS formally proposed the CGS system in 1874, although this system was gradually replaced over the next 70 years by MKS units. Both the CGS and MKS systems used the same second as their base unit of time. MKS was adopted internationally during the 1940s, defining the second as 1⁄86,400 of a mean solar day.
"
Quoting Wikipedia, Woz?
Yes, stupid Mike; how smart of you to notice after I wrote it
directly.
So you have no clue why that's a bad idea.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
I was talking about the unit of time measurement, the second
Talk about whatever you want, stupid Mike. Your moronic lies
won't change anything. To evaluate the real value of the
insane fartings of your idiot guru - one has to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
If the second couldn't be measured by the rotation of that space rock,
and wasn't even defined until mechanical clocks became accurate enough
to do that, how could it be defined, other than theoretically, that way?

The earth's rotation is a clock, the best clock of Einstein's time (long
term, anyway). If a better clock comes along, as it has, you claim it
can't be used for earlier measurements? If it was recorded in
historical documents that a certain Roman battle lasted two hours, and I
wanted to make a movie accurately reenacting the battle, I cannot
measure two hours on a watch, but I have to use a sundial or an
hourglass? Because Romans only had sundials and hourglasses, but no
digital watches?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
If Einstein were around he'd tell you that in 1905 the earth rotation
was used only because it was the best clock around then to MEASURE time,
It was and (as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI) it is still.
Nope. We measure it as slowing down. Atomic clocks (TAI time) are more
accurate than the earth is. That's why UTC time has leap seconds added
to it every so often. Plus it's irregular and not predictable, the leap
seconds can be declared no more than 6 months in advance.

Did you know UTC time and TAI time differ by 37 seconds now? They were
synched to be the same when defined in 1960. Do you even know what that
means?

And - whatever
Post by Maciej Wozniak
the reasons were, your idiot guru was too dumb keep his mumble
consistent with the definitions he was using. Yes, he was. It often
happens to idiots underestimating common sense (this collection
of prejudices).
Nowhere did he ever say relativity depended on any particular clock. Not
even our wobbly space rock. It depends on the length of TIME involved.

Time for you to go. There's a shit stain in a toilet in the first floor
men's room calling your name.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 05:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine
transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION.
Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS
changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled. To evaluate
the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1862 stated that "All men of science are agreed to use the second of mean solar time as the unit of time."[12] BAAS formally proposed the CGS system in 1874, although this system was gradually replaced over the next 70 years by MKS units. Both the CGS and MKS systems used the same second as their base unit of time. MKS was adopted internationally during the 1940s, defining the second as 1⁄86,400 of a mean solar day.
"
Quoting Wikipedia, Woz?
Yes, stupid Mike; how smart of you to notice after I wrote it
directly.
So you have no clue why that's a bad idea.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
I was talking about the unit of time measurement, the second
Talk about whatever you want, stupid Mike. Your moronic lies
won't change anything. To evaluate the real value of the
insane fartings of your idiot guru - one has to use the words
as HE meant them, and for him a second was BY DEFINITION
1/(24*60*60) of a day.
If the second couldn't be measured by the rotation of that space rock,
and wasn't even defined until mechanical clocks became accurate enough
to do that, how could it be defined, other than theoretically, that way?
It could be measured this way, it was measured this way, it is
still measured this way - GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t.
And your idiot guru was
Post by Michael Moroney
The earth's rotation is a clock, the best clock of Einstein's time (long
term, anyway). If a better clock comes along, as it has, you claim it
can't be used for earlier measurements? If it was recorded in
historical documents that a certain Roman battle lasted two hours, and I
wanted to make a movie accurately reenacting the battle, I cannot
measure two hours on a watch, but I have to use a sundial or an
hourglass? Because Romans only had sundials and hourglasses, but no
digital watches?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
If Einstein were around he'd tell you that in 1905 the earth rotation
was used only because it was the best clock around then to MEASURE time,
It was and (as anyone can check in GPS, or TAI) it is still.
Nope. We measure it as slowing down.
Of course, but it's still more reliable than your ISO nonsense.
Post by Michael Moroney
Did you know UTC time and TAI time differ by 37 seconds now? They were
synched to be the same when defined in 1960. Do you even know what that
means?
And did you know that GPS clocks on the satellites are set
to 9192631774 instead to 9192631770? Of course you do.
Do you even know what that means? Of course you don't.
You're just a stupid Mike.
See: according to ISO Cs clocks should be set to 9192631770
everywhere. According to the old definition - they should be
set to 9192631770 on Earth and 9192631774 on a GPS
satellite. Which setting was chosen, stupid Mike?
By people doing professional measurements for real, not
just in some moronic gedankens?
Post by Michael Moroney
And - whatever
Post by Maciej Wozniak
the reasons were, your idiot guru was too dumb keep his mumble
consistent with the definitions he was using. Yes, he was. It often
happens to idiots underestimating common sense (this collection
of prejudices).
Nowhere did he ever say relativity depended on any particular clock.
Too bad for him. He could, he should, but he was too dumb
to realize that otherwise his moronic mumble is only some
moronic mumble violating some basic definitions he is using.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-12 19:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>

Andersen: > >> The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
BY DEFINITION.
Wozniak: > > Unfortunately, definition can be changed, and actually - WAS changed since your idiot guru lived and mumbled.
To evaluate the real value of his insane fartings you have to use the words as HE meant them, and for him a second was
BY DEFINITION 1/(24*60*60) of a day.
WRONG. No STRICT definition then. The BEST TIME SOURCES of 1905 WERE THE RAILROADS, each individual railroad
PROBABLY had their own master clock. I DON'T KNOW how it worked in Europe, but the railroads in the US
had their own time zones for their schedules (national time zones didn't exist yet, railroads created them) and
of course they would be somewhat based on solar time -- of somewhere (not strictly since solar noon
varies throughout a year). Also with each other, enough so to arrange interline schedules or crossing lines, but
crossing lines were guarded by signals anyway.
Nothing in SR or GR depends on the wobbly rotation of some space rock, nor should it since time does not
depend on such rotation.
And this is why the current world is a shithole. Imbecile but opinionated Moroneys everywhere. And it's getting worse, with
Donos, Bodkins and JanPBs lookalike reproducing at faster rate than ever.

This was the state of affairs regarding universal time in the last years of XIX century and first years of XX century:

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

From the book: Henri Poincaré. A biography through the daily papers.

Excerpts from "7.1 The Fight over the Meridian"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From October 1 to November 1, 1884, an international conference of twentyfive
countries including France and Britain took place in Washington and
aimed to determine the location of an international reference meridian or
prime meridian that would standardize the partition of the earth in twentyfour
time zones. They had to choose among the following three proposals:

• The “international” meridian, located on the island of Ferro in the Canaries,
• the meridian of the Paris Observatory and
• the Greenwich meridian on the outskirts of London.
.......................
CLOSE THE MERIDIAN CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, NOV. 1. – The International Meridian Conference
held its final meeting today. The minutes of the proceedings
were submitted to the body and were approved. An
official copy of these proceedings in pursuance of the resolution
will be delivered to the Government of the United States. Upon
the resolution adopting the Meridian of Greenwich for a universal
initial meridian only one nation voted in the negative – San
Domingo. France and Brazil abstained from voting.
.......................................
Though France did not hurry either to recognize the meridian of Greenwich as the international
reference. It was actually quite the opposite, for seven years later, on March 14, 1891,
a law was passed to state that the French legal time would be given by the average time
of the Paris Observatory.

A bill was then introduced on March 8, 1897, in order to adopt the Greenwich “Universal Time”, but the
Senate was so opposed to it that the law was only passed fourteen years later, on March 9, 1911.
............................
In February 1911, in order to study the attachment of the French legal time to the Greenwich one, an
interministerial committee chaired by Henri Poincaré was formed.

The law was passed on March 9, 1911; two days later (on March 11, 1911), the news spread in The Washington Herald.

Paris. March .10. – Starting exactly at midnight to-night, time was annihilated in France for the space of 9 minutes and 21 seconds.
On the stroke of the hour all the clocks in the republic were stopped for the time indicated, in order to comply with the law making
the tune here the same as in all places within a radius 15 degrees, and in which the time is regulated from Greenwich, England.

All railway trains, if on time, were held up and those which were behind schedule were required to make up the difference.
Owing to the change in time an interesting question has arisen. It is questionable if a child that is born and dies with in the
lapsed time will really had lived. This point is puzzling the legal talent.

The new time will not be used at the wireless station for signaling ships until June 30 next. The present opportunity is taken
advantage of, however, to abolish the old custom of keeping the clocks outside railway stations five minutes faster than those
inside. It has taken a quarter of a century to overcome the French prejudice against taking time from Greenwich, but now
that this has been accomplished, there is a feeling that England in return should adopt the metric system.
.......................................

9 minutes and 21 seconds was the change that France had to introduce in every clock by 1911.

The use of 1 second as 1/86400 part of an earthly day (60 x 60 x 24 sec/day) was of common use since mid 1860's.

International business information carried by telegraph networks was an important pushing force to have time sync
accross the Atlantic, and later throughout the entire world. Submarine cables for telegraphy carried sync information by then,
and once radio appeared as a worldwide network with Marcony, it was used to carry sync information to every place on Earth.

See, donkey Moroney? Instead of jumping to appear as an "opinionated" asshole, you should stop inventing shit as usually you do
and use your time to LEARN SOMETHING.


Wozniak IS RIGHT, and you are an idiot struggling to pretend what you are not: a know-it-all.
Kendale Gross
2021-10-13 17:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
WRONG. No STRICT definition then. The BEST TIME SOURCES of 1905 WERE
THE RAILROADS, each individual railroad PROBABLY had their own master
clock.
I DON'T KNOW how it worked in Europe, but the railroads in the US had
their own time zones for their schedules (national time zones didn't
exist yet, railroads created them) and of course they would be somewhat
based on solar time -- of somewhere (not strictly since solar noon
varies throughout a year). Also with each other, enough so to arrange
interline schedules or crossing lines, but crossing lines were guarded
by signals anyway.
Why Was America Funding the Controversial Wuhan Laboratory That Created
the COVID-19 Virus?
Richard Hertz
2021-10-12 15:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 4:40:23 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.

i'm the one who made an OP, in a heated thread months ago, about HOW cesium and rubidium clocks worked. I'm the one, also, that
wrote about the quantum phase noise of about ± 100 Hz with a gaussian distribution. That OP meant that, in the case of cesium, the
energy of the % of electrons that perfom the hyperfine transition is randomly distributed around a value Eo, giving an emission of
EM waves (photons, if you will) with an average frequency fo = 9192631770 Hz ± 100 Hz (Gauss distribution). I also wrote (with the
help of HP specs for atomic clocks and papers dealing the subject) that cesium was a better choice than rubidium (10x) in terms
of long term stability.

And, finally, I wrote about the definitive proof that atomic clocks were based on the capability of a negative feedback arrangement
to provide the needed stability of the true MASTER SOURCE OF FREQUENCY in atomic clocks: A phase stabilized OCXO, tipically
chosen to oscillate at 10.0000000000 Mhz, from which any other frequency IS DERIVED. In no way, such frequency is obtained
by scaling down 9192631770 Hz. On the contrary, cesium atoms are excited by MW that are slowly swept around such fo, with a
base frequency upscaled from 10 Mhz (or equivalent). The sweeping MW signal around fo is SLOWLY frequency-modulated by
a test signal with 200-300 Hz, with the PURPOSE to excite AS MANY AS POSSIBLE cesium atoms within a Ramsay MW cavity.


GPS satellite's master clock "adjustment" and relativity. Doubts.
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/R-TY0XkJhK4/m/4Mh0ZlzPBgAJ

So, the OUTPUT of an atomic clock IS NOT a noisy MW signal due to resonance in Ramsay cavities and further convertion
of photons in A LOW FREQUENCY (Sub-audio < 300 Hz) demodulated signal, originated in a photodetector. The output is
ALWAYS an HF signal (i.e. 10 Mhz), from an OCXO which is phase-locked to cesium or rubidium selected hyperfine transitions.

That 9192631770 Hz has been selected by DEFINITION poses the same value that c = 299792458 m/s be DEFINED. When
measurements from credited labs can't obtain the same value (fed to BIMP) for any given primary or secondary standard, and
it's understood that NEVER EVER such measurements will converge, with a very narrow dispersion, to a main value, THEN the
BIMP's bureaucracy jumps in and provides a value BY DEFINITION.

This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE the most unthinkable places,
like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.

And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.

And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.

The problem with you, Paul, is that you are leaned to jump to conclusions faster than what you should.

I became interested in your scientific background, so I searched topics from early years (2003-2014), when you was
fighting to establish a reputation here. I've read many long threads, following your line of thought, and even when you had
many funny slips, I've found that you HAD a clear, deep and scientific mind, along with a character of good nature.

Posts like the one you made here breaks my heart, because it shows HOW (with the years) the original inquisitive, serious and
focused mind has deranged into vulgar TROLLING in the last years. It's not a mental decline, but an spiritual decline instead,
which caused you to morph into the average "I'm an expert and you're not" kind of relativistic troll.

You should be ashamed by your current behavior, Paul. I know that this site is almost depleted with the kind of people
that you used to debate just 6 years ago, but this is not a reason for you to become a caricature of yourself.

Let this kind of things to Dono, Bodkin, Moroney, JanPB or similar characters.

I know that you are not like them, at all. I'm good decoding people's purposes and, again, I have to remark your good nature.

Now, RE-READ this thread as it is supposed to be: A MOCK about extremism of relativists (Germany PTB) and a REJECTION, because
of its unfounded idiocy, of the Einstein's 1911 formula (2a), which is derived from the original assertion that "energy stored in
gravitational potential causes the alteration of original frequency of light-oscillators at an height "h" when reaches ground level".

As simple as that. And GPS is the flagship in the quest of einstenians to prove "Einstein was right" AT ANY COST.
Dono.
2021-10-12 16:12:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip regurgitated imbecilities<
You are a cretin not only when it comes to physics but also when it comes to engineering and math. Deal with it!
Michael Moroney
2021-10-12 20:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second.
This is necessary if the first postulate is true. It is only when
comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using
light/photons) when direct comparison isn't possible, is when there can
be a difference.
Post by Richard Hertz
i'm the one who made an OP, in a heated thread months ago,
<bla bla bla>

An awful lot of blithering when you could have just said "it's a phase
locked loop".
Post by Richard Hertz
That 9192631770 Hz has been selected by DEFINITION poses the same value that c = 299792458 m/s be DEFINED. When
measurements from credited labs can't obtain the same value (fed to BIMP) for any given primary or secondary standard, and
it's understood that NEVER EVER such measurements will converge, with a very narrow dispersion, to a main value, THEN the
BIMP's bureaucracy jumps in and provides a value BY DEFINITION.
Nope. Any number could have been chosen instead of 9192631770. That
number was chosen to keep the NEW definition of the second (and meter)
as close as possible to the (best measured values of) the OLD
definitions. They just did that again a couple of years ago redefining
the kilogram. (aside: You don't see cranks whining about the
redefinition of the kilogram as a function of other physical constants,
just the decades old redefinition of the second & meter. Or the
redefinition of the inch/foot/mile. Certainly only because E*nst**n
wasn't involved)
Post by Richard Hertz
This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism)
ooh, two new variations on crackpot words! Adjacent to each other, even!
Post by Richard Hertz
HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE
And another crank word (actually a real word used with a crackpot
definition used), too, separated from the other crank words by just one
regular English word! Three crackpot words in four words total! Is that
a record? (knowing cranks, certainly not)
Post by Richard Hertz
the most unthinkable places,
like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.
Post by Richard Hertz
And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.
Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form
was the 1915 paper, plus followons.
Post by Richard Hertz
And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency
generators). Astronomers do it all the time.
Post by Richard Hertz
I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were
really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!
Post by Richard Hertz
Now, RE-READ this thread as it is supposed to be: A MOCK about extremism of relativists (Germany PTB) and a REJECTION, because
of its unfounded idiocy, of the Einstein's 1911 formula (2a), which is derived from the original assertion that "energy stored in
gravitational potential causes the alteration of original frequency of light-oscillators at an height "h" when reaches ground level".
Mock all you want. In response, people actually knowledgeable about
science will mock YOU for being so stupidly mouth-foaming rabid at
insisting actual MEASURED values must be wrong. Remember, if theory says
one thing and repeated measurements say something else, it's the theory
which is wrong. In this case, frequency generators are MEASURED as
showing differences based on relative height. See Pound-Rebka, and,
yes, the GPS system as well. Too bad for you and your "Einstein is
always wrong!" 'theory'.
Post by Richard Hertz
As simple as that. And GPS is the flagship in the quest of einstenians to prove "Einstein was right" AT ANY COST.
Kookbabble!
Richard Hertz
2021-10-13 00:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>

Andersen: > >> The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
Post by Richard Hertz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Hertz: > > Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.

Moroney: > No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true. It is only when
comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't possible, is when there can
be a difference.
NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT. And BY DEFINITION means something
written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND! A fucking circular thought, but you relativists
are used to such schizophrenic view of the world, so not more damage can be done. Keep circling around and maybe will catch the carrot.


<snip>

Hertz: > > That 9192631770 Hz has been selected by DEFINITION poses the same value that c = 299792458 m/s be DEFINED. When
Post by Richard Hertz
measurements from credited labs can't obtain the same value (fed to BIMP) for any given primary or secondary standard, and
it's understood that NEVER EVER such measurements will converge, with a very narrow dispersion, to a main value, THEN the
BIMP's bureaucracy jumps in and provides a value BY DEFINITION.
Moroney: > Nope. Any number could have been chosen instead of 9192631770. That
number was chosen to keep the NEW definition of the second (and meter)
as close as possible to the (best measured values of) the OLD
definitions. They just did that again a couple of years ago redefining
the kilogram. (aside: You don't see cranks whining about the
redefinition of the kilogram as a function of other physical constants,
just the decades old redefinition of the second & meter. Or the
redefinition of the inch/foot/mile. Certainly only because E*nst**n
wasn't involved)
BLA BLA BLA. Twisted crazy words for someone who didn't know how a second was measured 120 years ago. Read again the
other thread, where I beat the crap out of you. Poincaré sent his best regards to you, ignorant relativist who think in trains giving the time.

Hertz: > > This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE
Post by Richard Hertz
the most unthinkable places, like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
Moroney: > REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.

Not a sane and decent scientist that knows that maintaining accuracy within 1 second in 25 million years is RIDICULE. Or those
who don't have a clue about HOW COME they are going to correct 1 usec WITHIN THE SECONDS ELAPSED IN ONE YEAR!

Hertz: > > And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.

Moroney: > Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form was the 1915 paper, plus followons.

BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.

Hertz: > > And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
Moroney: > They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency generators). Astronomers do it all the time.

AGAIN: THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.

Hertz: > > I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Moroney: > Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!

If you poke your nose in "not your business" comment, addressed to Paul, you come out looking as an imbecile.

<snip>
Michael Moroney
2021-10-13 01:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Andersen: > >> The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
Post by Richard Hertz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Hertz: > > Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
Moroney: > No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true. It is only when
comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't possible, is when there can
be a difference.
NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT.
Yes, the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites. If they divide the
Cs frequency by 9192631770 they'll get a tick at exactly 1 second per
tick, as verified by an observer. [insert whine about there's no
astronaut riding a GPS satellite, the GPS specs use "would observe"
etc.] The existence of a DIFFERENT signal, dividing Cs by 9192631774.1
doesn't change that.
Post by Richard Hertz
And BY DEFINITION means something
written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
Exactly. That's why the definition of a second specifies the exact
number, and that the Cs clock is local, which the theoretical astronaut
is necessary to measure a satellite's frequency.

Obviously a satellite whizzing overhead by thousands of miles at high
speeds isn't exactly local!
Post by Richard Hertz
So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND!
Looks like your crank "cult" thinking is back.
Post by Richard Hertz
A fucking circular thought,
Nope. It just means you can have a whole bunch of clocks and clock-like
things, all different kinds perhaps, if they are good clocks they ALL
will tick in lockstep with the Cs clock defining the second, one second
per second.
Post by Richard Hertz
but you relativists
There's that crank word again!
Post by Richard Hertz
are used to such schizophrenic view of the world,
Projection.
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz: > > This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE
Post by Richard Hertz
the most unthinkable places, like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
Moroney: > REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.
Not a sane and decent scientist that knows that maintaining accuracy within 1 second in 25 million years is RIDICULE.
Ridicule? You think scientists joke about the accuracy of atomic clocks?
Regardless, many scientists need better accuracy than the wobbly earth
and they'll appreciate atomic clocks and seconds defined by them, even
if you have no use for that.
Post by Richard Hertz
Or those
who don't have a clue about HOW COME they are going to correct 1 usec WITHIN THE SECONDS ELAPSED IN ONE YEAR!
Because good old Planet Earth is wobbly.
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz: > > And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.
Moroney: > Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form was the 1915 paper, plus followons.
BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Use what's derived from the 1915 paper, the 1911 paper wasn't ready for
prime time.
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz: > > And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
Moroney: > They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency generators). Astronomers do it all the time.
AGAIN: THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
And...? A formula is correct or incorrect, not "idiotic" or "stupid".
If you think it's incorrect, prove it. But since the GPS, GNSS, etc. use
it AND THEY WORK, it sure looks like that "idiotic" formula is correct!
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz: > > I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Moroney: > Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!
If you poke your nose in "not your business" comment, addressed to Paul, you come out looking as an imbecile.
Nope. Usenet is public postings. Anyone who cares can see and comment
on anything you post. If it's "not my business", send it to Paul via
email. Would you print private love letters to your sweetheart in the
newspaper and demand that nobody read that newspaper?

Also the fact remains. You do an awful job at interpreting other
peoples' purposes and actions.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-13 05:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>

And this is how a exchange of posts between an indoctrinated idiot and me (Hertz) looks like:

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

Andersen 1: The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
..........................
Hertz 1: Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
Moroney 1: No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true.
It is only when comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't
possible, is when there can be a difference.

Now: You and Paul are both wrong. A definition of time, stated on a BIMP document, is in conflict with the real world.
Had you read the firsts posts here, you'd acknowledge that maintaining such statement is a chimera, because reality forces
to accept that here, on Earth, advanced countries only achieve UTC time sync with a difference in the order of ± 10 nsec. And
these is only for 14 countries or less. The rest of countries are WELL above such difference with UTC(BIMP).
..........................
Hertz 2: NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT.
Moroney 2: Yes, the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites. If they divide the Cs frequency by 9192631770 they'll get a tick at
exactly 1 second per tick, as verified by an observer. [insert whine about there's no astronaut riding a GPS satellite, the GPS specs
use "would observe" etc.] The existence of a DIFFERENT signal, dividing Cs by 9192631774.1 doesn't change that.

NOW: No! And this is a proof or your regular resort to fallacies and "straw man" arguments. If such division could be achieved (not
possible with down-scalers, because prime numbers decomposition don't provide exact multipliers), you would get a NOISY LOW
FREQUENCY MODULATED RESIDUAL: 1 sec ± ΔT(t).

ΔT(t) is random and account, mostly, for quantum noise at the conversion of MW to V(t) = Y(t) . Δf(t) at the output of the photodiode.
V(t) contains the random variations around fo in the MW region, is a complex low frequency signal which could be mathematically
related to ΔT(t). V(t) is heavily low-pass filtered and fed into the OCXO at HF, to phase-lock the output of the OCXO that feeds a digital
counter which, finally, provides TIME!.

The phase correction is done with a sub-Hertz signal, to avoid jumps into the OCXO oscillation and, then, the count of pulses.

The output of the HF OCXO signal is elevated to the MW region to feed the Ramsay cavity and excite atoms. To be sure that most
atoms be excited, such signal is frequency modulated with a LF signal (about 200 Hz), to cover the MW dispersion of transitions.
..........................
Hertz 2: And BY DEFINITION means something written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement
after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
Moroney 2: Exactly. That's why the definition of a second specifies the exact number, and that the Cs clock is local, which the theoretical
astronaut is necessary to measure a satellite's frequency. Obviously a satellite whizzing overhead by thousands of miles at high speeds
isn't exactly local!

NOW: You are digressing, playing with fallacies at the same time.
..........................
Hertz 2: So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND!
Moroney 2: Looks like your crank "cult" thinking is back.
..........................
Hertz 2: A fucking circular thought,
Moroney 2: Nope. It just means you can have a whole bunch of clocks and clock-like things, all different kinds perhaps, if they are good
clocks they ALL will tick in lockstep with the Cs clock defining the second, one second per second.
..........................
Hertz 2: but you relativists are used to such schizophrenic view of the world,
Moroney 2: There's that crank word again! Projection.
..........................
Hertz 1: This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE the most unthinkable
places, like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
Moroney 1: REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.

Hertz 2: Not a sane and decent scientist that knows that maintaining accuracy within 1 second in 25 million years is RIDICULE.
Moroney 2: Ridicule? You think scientists joke about the accuracy of atomic clocks? Regardless, many scientists need better accuracy
than the wobbly earth and they'll appreciate atomic clocks and seconds defined by them, even if you have no use for that.

NOW: NO! There is an EXCESS OF IDIOTS WHO GAINED A PHYSICS DEGREE AND ARE DESPERATE TO JUSTIFY THEIR JOBS, so they
go further and further into STUPID AND COSTLY projects, losing contact with reality increasingly as years pass by. Science and
technology have reached limits in their short career since modern instrumentation allowed their members to play.

It's the same in microelectronics, where the career to achieve lower densities (below 3 nm) is colliding with the random quantum world.
How can you control 1 Trillion transistors in 4 cm² chip, 20 atoms each, but that consumes 100 Watts? Why do they keep going, then?
Because Intel, IBM, etc., should then fire every scientist and stop the pursuit of Moore's Law for 10 years, and reorient themselves to
produce real useful chips to make a better world, instead of better smartphones or computers. TOO MANY PEOPLE WORKING THERE!
..........................
Hertz 2: Or those who don't have a clue about HOW COME they are going to correct 1 usec WITHIN THE SECONDS ELAPSED IN ONE YEAR!
Moroney 2: Because good old Planet Earth is wobbly.

NOW: Moroney in full colors. Has to write something, no matter what.
..........................
Hertz 1: And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.
Moroney 1: Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form was the 1915 paper, plus followons.

NOW: I'm not obsessed with 1911 (2a) formula. You are one of many to defend 1915 GR no matter what, even if it costs your soul.

1911 (2a) formula: Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) , for gravitational shift.

2015 GR formula at its finest: Δf/f = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) . (1 + J2/2) , for gravitational shift. (Mudrak et. all). Sound familiar?

Considering that J2/2 = 0.0005413134 and can be discarded in first approximation, it results that formulae from 1911 and 2015 are equal.
..........................
Hertz 2: BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: Use what's derived from the 1915 paper, the 1911 paper wasn't ready for prime time.

NOW: Read above, idiot.
..........................
Hertz 1: And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
Moroney 1: They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency generators). Astronomers do it all the time.

NOW: Inventing stuff. Anything is possible in Moroney's world, as long as the doctrine for retarded relativists is preserved from truth.
..........................
Hertz 2: AGAIN: THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: And...? A formula is correct or incorrect, not "idiotic" or "stupid". If you think it's incorrect, prove it. But since the GPS, GNSS,
etc. use it AND THEY WORK, it sure looks like that "idiotic" formula is correct!

NOW: A formula can be WRONG AND IDIOTIC, as the one making mc²=hf (de Broglie 1921 and many other fuckers). Then, he changed
his thesis topic in 1922 to undulatory particles (no mass for light, then).
..........................
Hertz 1: I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Moroney 1: Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!

NOW: I'm good at that. For instance, I decode that you are an idiot with idiotic purposes in life.
..........................
Hertz 2: If you poke your nose in "not your business" comment, addressed to Paul, you come out looking as an imbecile.
Moroney 2: Nope. Usenet is public postings. Anyone who cares can see and comment on anything you post. If it's "not my business",
send it to Paul via email. Would you print private love letters to your sweetheart in the newspaper and demand that nobody read that newspaper? Also the fact remains. You do an awful job at interpreting other peoples' purposes and actions.

NOW: I'm good at that. You use every tool in your toolbox to distort or change comments from others at this site. But you suck being
a sophist and using fallacies and derogatory comments, as Bodkin and JanPB do. At least the other retarded, Dono, is quite direct.

..........................
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 05:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen 1: The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-13 07:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 2:41:48 AM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.

I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.

Think about these organizations, and how much they became empowered after WWII and the division of work:

1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)

And I stop with this dozen of organizations that are in the Tier 1.
Then, add 50 organizations in the Tier 2.
Then, add 200 organizations that are in Tier 3.

Now, multiply 12 x 50 x 200 = 120,000

Now, take the about 240 countries and classify them by Tier 1 (G-7 countries), Tier 2 (G-20 countries) and Tier 3 (the rest).

Now, assume that about 50 countries have 5 persons working at each of the national delegations of these agencies.

It gives 30 million persons in a world of 7.500 million inhabitants. It gives about 1 person in 250 managing some aspects of their lives.

It means: 1 bureaucrat fed by 249 persons in a wide age distribution, who have to obey or else.

Now, try to get the job of any of those 30 million bureaucrats. They will KILL YOU before you try to do it.

And, also, imagine those organizations LINKED in a very complex WEB OF THREADS (interests), which is called GLOBALIZATION.

Try to defy such accumulation of power, and tell me how did it work for you, in any aspect.

Pyramidal hierarchies of distributed power interrelated in a ultra-complex ecosystem.

Now, two more steps:

1) Find which is the unspeakable in such world organization, and I'll tell you who has the power (Hint: banks)

2) In an effort of imagination, now try to map RELATIVISTS in such complex scheme. They are NOTHING, yet the
INSTINCT TO KILL YOU if you challenge their position of power is equal or higher than in any other organization,
without any difference at which TIER they belong or in which COUNTRY they live.

If you see the world in this way (I do), and have compassion in your soul, you probably will feel sorry for their pathetic
attempts to belong to such scheme of "order".

That's what I think of relativists at this forum: They don't realize that they are between the 249 persons under 1 fucking bureaucrat
for every single aspect of their lives, since they wake-up till they go to sleep.

I know my place in the world, which is based on a balance between acceptance and resignation. I find amusing to enervate those
who haven't reached enough power of awareness to understand that there is not ONE TRUTH, BUT MANY. And that you are free to
go jumping between truths as often as it suits you.

A friend of mine has defined his world in two phrases:

1) I have strong principles that rule my life, only that they are not permanent.
2) If you don't like my principles, I have these others.

An epitome of cynic and hypocritical, but it seems to work very well for him.

Maybe, some members of this forum should acknowledge their place in the world, be humble and behave accordingly.

And if not, maluw, just let them be. Maybe they have moments, when they are in the zone of being awake and sleeping,
in the quietness of the night, a lightning of understanding strike them and regret. Then, they sleep.

Pawns in the global game. That's what we all are (except the 100,000 motherfuckers who really rule the world).

See how relativity really work in the real world? In the way I described it above.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 07:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
The reality surely is, but relativistic self-appointed gurus
are relatively primitive and simple.
Odd Bodkin
2021-10-13 12:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical systems
(like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed
for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
Think about these organizations, and how much they became empowered after
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And I stop with this dozen of organizations that are in the Tier 1.
Then, add 50 organizations in the Tier 2.
Then, add 200 organizations that are in Tier 3.
Now, multiply 12 x 50 x 200 = 120,000
Now, take the about 240 countries and classify them by Tier 1 (G-7
countries), Tier 2 (G-20 countries) and Tier 3 (the rest).
Now, assume that about 50 countries have 5 persons working at each of the
national delegations of these agencies.
It gives 30 million persons in a world of 7.500 million inhabitants. It
gives about 1 person in 250 managing some aspects of their lives.
It means: 1 bureaucrat fed by 249 persons in a wide age distribution, who
have to obey or else.
Now, try to get the job of any of those 30 million bureaucrats. They will
KILL YOU before you try to do it.
And, also, imagine those organizations LINKED in a very complex WEB OF
THREADS (interests), which is called GLOBALIZATION.
Try to defy such accumulation of power, and tell me how did it work for you, in any aspect.
Pyramidal hierarchies of distributed power interrelated in a ultra-complex ecosystem.
1) Find which is the unspeakable in such world organization, and I'll
tell you who has the power (Hint: banks)
2) In an effort of imagination, now try to map RELATIVISTS in such
complex scheme. They are NOTHING, yet the
INSTINCT TO KILL YOU if you challenge their position of power is
equal or higher than in any other organization,
without any difference at which TIER they belong or in which COUNTRY they live.
If you see the world in this way (I do), and have compassion in your
soul, you probably will feel sorry for their pathetic
attempts to belong to such scheme of "order".
That's what I think of relativists at this forum: They don't realize that
they are between the 249 persons under 1 fucking bureaucrat
for every single aspect of their lives, since they wake-up till they go to sleep.
I know my place in the world, which is based on a balance between
acceptance and resignation. I find amusing to enervate those
who haven't reached enough power of awareness to understand that there is
not ONE TRUTH, BUT MANY. And that you are free to
go jumping between truths as often as it suits you.
1) I have strong principles that rule my life, only that they are not permanent.
2) If you don't like my principles, I have these others.
An epitome of cynic and hypocritical, but it seems to work very well for him.
Maybe, some members of this forum should acknowledge their place in the
world, be humble and behave accordingly.
And if not, maluw, just let them be. Maybe they have moments, when they
are in the zone of being awake and sleeping,
in the quietness of the night, a lightning of understanding strike them
and regret. Then, they sleep.
Pawns in the global game. That's what we all are (except the 100,000
motherfuckers who really rule the world).
Maybe the Masons have something to do with it. Have you seen any black
helicopters with that logo on the tail rotor? Are they in cahoots with the
Trilateral Commission? I’m pretty sure that there was a regular poster here
(or maybe on sci.physics) who has had a dream of meeting an intergalactic
sheriff with a glowing belt buckle, and he says it’s THOSE guys that are
ruling the world, and that your “fucking bureaucrat” is just a puppet-prop,
something like Men in Black.

So …. Stirring the pot, or are you really off the edge of the map?
Post by Richard Hertz
See how relativity really work in the real world? In the way I described it above.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
JanPB
2021-10-13 12:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And, of course, the conclusion is: "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are some obedient parts of the establishment".

Standard infantile intellectual crutch designed to make you feel better.

Science, physics, relativity, etc. couldn't care less about this sort
of intellectual laziness.

--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 13:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And, of course, the conclusion is: "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are some obedient parts of the establishment".
How different from Jan's stance "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are moronic cranks."
Post by JanPB
Standard infantile intellectual crutch designed to make you feel better.
Often. Still, poor halfbrain - establishments really happen and
they really have obedient parts.
Post by JanPB
Science, physics, relativity, etc. couldn't care less about this sort
of intellectual laziness.
And in the meantime in the real world - GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
carl eto
2021-10-13 16:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And in the meantime in the real world - GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

You cannot measure a time difference of a radio wave using a GPS since electrons are propagating slower than the velocity of light.
Odd Bodkin
2021-10-13 13:49:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical
systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed
for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
Think about these organizations, and how much they became empowered
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And, of course, the conclusion is: "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are some obedient parts of the establishment".
Standard infantile intellectual crutch designed to make you feel better.
Science, physics, relativity, etc. couldn't care less about this sort
of intellectual laziness.
--
Jan
“The lack of evidence of conspiracy is the proof of the coverup performed
by the conspiracy.”

“Yes, I am one of the very few insightful people, while the rest of the
world are blind sheeple who cannot see what I see.”

“No, of course, the fact that I believe one thing and the rest of the world
believes another is not a sign of my insanity. It’s a sign of my
unrecognized and unrewarded genius.”

“The fact that I can find at least six other sources on the internet that
are saying essentially the same thing I’m saying proves that there is an
ongoing controversy, and so the discussion is warranted.”

“How DARE you ignore me! I wrote 1850 words in that post, all exquisitely
crafted and making a crucial point. My effort alone has earned the rightful
expectation that you spend at least as much effort in responding to me.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-10-13 14:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical
systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed
for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
Think about these organizations, and how much they became empowered
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And, of course, the conclusion is: "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are some obedient parts of the establishment".
Standard infantile intellectual crutch designed to make you feel better.
Science, physics, relativity, etc. couldn't care less about this sort
of intellectual laziness.
--
Jan
“The lack of evidence of conspiracy is the proof of the coverup performed
by the conspiracy.”
“Yes, I am one of the very few insightful people, while the rest of the
world are blind sheeple who cannot see what I see.”
“No, of course, the fact that I believe one thing and the rest of the world
believes another is not a sign of my insanity. It’s a sign of my
unrecognized and unrewarded genius.”
“The fact that I can find at least six other sources on the internet that
are saying essentially the same thing I’m saying proves that there is an
ongoing controversy, and so the discussion is warranted.”
“How DARE you ignore me! I wrote 1850 words in that post, all exquisitely
crafted and making a crucial point. My effort alone has earned the rightful
expectation that you spend at least as much effort in responding to me.”
Odd sure has you pegged, doesn't he.

It's called "paranoid schizophrenia".
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 15:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Maciej Wozniak
The problem with morons like Andersen, Roberts and others
- is that they deeply believe than mortal worms are FORCED
to obey them. They are the COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS,
they have decided what "second" should mean, against
billions of people using the word differently, they expect
the obedience.
Poor idiots.
I think that reality is much worse and complex than the world that you described.
I understand that this complex world is organized in hierarchical
systems (like the military) for almost every
single branch of activity. These pyramidal structures of power existed
for centuries, but only in the last 150 years
they started to cooperate to rule the world.
Think about these organizations, and how much they became empowered
1. The United Nations (UN)
2. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. The World Health Organization (WHO)
4. NATO
5. The World Bank and the IMF
6. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
7. The Catholic Church (Vatican and Pope at the top)
8 .Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T and ITU-R)
10. World Economic Forum
11. International Labour Organization (ILO)
12. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
And, of course, the conclusion is: "I'm right, and if anyone says
I'm wrong, they are some obedient parts of the establishment".
Standard infantile intellectual crutch designed to make you feel better.
Science, physics, relativity, etc. couldn't care less about this sort
of intellectual laziness.
--
Jan
“The lack of evidence of conspiracy is the proof of the coverup performed
by the conspiracy.”
“Yes, I am one of the very few insightful people, while the rest of the
world are blind sheeple who cannot see what I see.”
“No, of course, the fact that I believe one thing and the rest of the world
believes another is not a sign of my insanity. It’s a sign of my
unrecognized and unrewarded genius.”
“The fact that I can find at least six other sources on the internet that
are saying essentially the same thing I’m saying proves that there is an
ongoing controversy, and so the discussion is warranted.”
“How DARE you ignore me! I wrote 1850 words in that post, all exquisitely
crafted and making a crucial point. My effort alone has earned the rightful
expectation that you spend at least as much effort in responding to me.”
Odd sure has you pegged, doesn't he.
Sure, stupid Mike, sure; in the meantime in the real
world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 15:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
“Yes, I am one of the very few insightful people, while the rest of the
world are blind sheeple who cannot see what I see.”
That's right, Bod, one of the very few insightful people.
Post by Odd Bodkin
“No, of course, the fact that I believe one thing and the rest of the world
believes another is not a sign of my insanity. It’s a sign of my
unrecognized and unrewarded genius.”
That's right, Bod, unrecognized and unrewarded genius.
Post by Odd Bodkin
“The fact that I can find at least six other sources on the internet that
are saying essentially the same thing I’m saying proves that there is an
ongoing controversy, and so the discussion is warranted.”
No, Bod; that you can find such sources mean there is no ongoing
controversy and any discussion is a waste of time.
Michael Moroney
2021-10-13 16:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Or rather a bizarre misinterpretation of an exchange by myself and an
anti-relativity crank.
Post by Richard Hertz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen 1: The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
..........................
Hertz 1: Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
Moroney 1: No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true.
It is only when comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't
possible, is when there can be a difference.
Now: You and Paul are both wrong. A definition of time, stated on a BIMP document, is in conflict with the real world.
Had you read the firsts posts here, you'd acknowledge that maintaining such statement is a chimera, because reality forces
to accept that here, on Earth, advanced countries only achieve UTC time sync with a difference in the order of ± 10 nsec. And
these is only for 14 countries or less. The rest of countries are WELL above such difference with UTC(BIMP).
The inaccuracy of currently implemented technology has nothing to do
with the first postulate application that a clock ticks one second per
second locally, regardless of where it is.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT.
Moroney 2: Yes, the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites. If they divide the Cs frequency by 9192631770 they'll get a tick at
exactly 1 second per tick, as verified by an observer. [insert whine about there's no astronaut riding a GPS satellite, the GPS specs
use "would observe" etc.] The existence of a DIFFERENT signal, dividing Cs by 9192631774.1 doesn't change that.
NOW: No!
Yes. This is a simple comparison of a ground level clock and the SIGNAL
transmitted from the remote clock to the ground clock.
Post by Richard Hertz
And this is a proof or your regular resort to fallacies and "straw man" arguments.
Pound-Rebka is not a "straw man" argument. Nor was Gravity Probe 1. Nor
are GPS (GNSS, GALILEO, BAIDOU etc.) satellites.
Post by Richard Hertz
If such division could be achieved (not
possible with down-scalers, because prime numbers decomposition don't provide exact multipliers),
You can divide down by any integer ratio by dividers in both the VCO
path and the frequency from the Cs generator inputs into the phase
comparison circuit.
Post by Richard Hertz
you would get a NOISY LOW
FREQUENCY MODULATED RESIDUAL: 1 sec ± ΔT(t).
They have a serious low pass filter involved. This means it takes some
time to lock but also means it stays locked. A proper analysis by a
qualified engineer (excludes yourself) would explain this.
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz 2: And BY DEFINITION means something written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement
after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
Moroney 2: Exactly. That's why the definition of a second specifies the exact number, and that the Cs clock is local, which the theoretical
astronaut is necessary to measure a satellite's frequency. Obviously a satellite whizzing overhead by thousands of miles at high speeds
isn't exactly local!
NOW: You are digressing, playing with fallacies at the same time.
Nope. Explaining how the definitions are interpreted.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND!
Moroney 2: Looks like your crank "cult" thinking is back.
..........................
Hertz 2: A fucking circular thought,
Moroney 2: Nope. It just means you can have a whole bunch of clocks and clock-like things, all different kinds perhaps, if they are good
clocks they ALL will tick in lockstep with the Cs clock defining the second, one second per second.
..........................
Hertz 2: but you relativists are used to such schizophrenic view of the world,
Moroney 2: There's that crank word again! Projection.
All those clocks ticking one second per second means the clocks are
working correctly as clocks despite different designs or whatever. Clock
also includes time dependent effects. If the decay of a radioactive
substance is locally monitored, its half-life will be the same
regardless of whether it's on the moon, the ground etc. As measured locally.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 1: This thread is devoted to show how come einstenianism (relativism) HAS INFECTED AS A DOCTRINE the most unthinkable
places, like those who controls TIME&FREQUENCY on national and international basis.
Moroney 1: REAL scientists appreciate the increased precision and accuracy possible.
Hertz 2: Not a sane and decent scientist that knows that maintaining accuracy within 1 second in 25 million years is RIDICULE.
Moroney 2: Ridicule? You think scientists joke about the accuracy of atomic clocks? Regardless, many scientists need better accuracy
than the wobbly earth and they'll appreciate atomic clocks and seconds defined by them, even if you have no use for that.
NOW: NO!
Yes. There are many physics experiments which need precise time
measurement more accurate than our wobbly earth can provide. Even if the
earth is good to 1 second per 18 months or so (~20 parts per billion),
atomic clocks can and do do better, and many experiments need that.
Particularly experiments trying to figure out how much the earth's
rotation varies. You can't measure the earth against itself!
Post by Richard Hertz
There is an EXCESS OF IDIOTS WHO GAINED A PHYSICS DEGREE AND ARE DESPERATE TO JUSTIFY THEIR JOBS, so they
Your opinion that there are too many physicists is irrelevant.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: Or those who don't have a clue about HOW COME they are going to correct 1 usec WITHIN THE SECONDS ELAPSED IN ONE YEAR!
Moroney 2: Because good old Planet Earth is wobbly.
NOW: Moroney in full colors. Has to write something, no matter what.
If they find an error in the number of seconds it takes for some rock to
orbit its star, that's some sort of variation of the rock, not of time.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 1: And this thread is devoted to show how AN STUPID 1911 FORMULA still is used, without ANY PHYSICAL MEANING behind.
Moroney 1: Why are you obsessed with the 1911/1913 relativity? The correct form was the 1915 paper, plus followons.
NOW: I'm not obsessed with 1911 (2a) formula.
You most certainly are. Use 1915 GR even if its predictions are the
same as the 1911 paper. The 1911 paper did get much (not all) right.
Using the 1911 explanation rather than the 1915 explanation indicates
some oddball specific detail of your obsession.
Post by Richard Hertz
You are one of many to defend 1915 GR no matter what, even if it costs your soul.
No. So far nobody has disproven it.
Post by Richard Hertz
1911 (2a) formula: Δf/f2 = Φ/c² = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) , for gravitational shift.
2015 GR formula at its finest: Δf/f = −G.Me/(Rs.c²) + G.Me/(Re.c²) . (1 + J2/2) , for gravitational shift. (Mudrak et. all). Sound familiar?
Yawn. So that part of the 1911 paper is correct other than that last
term. So what? Again use the 1915 paper even if that part is identical
to 1911.
Post by Richard Hertz
Considering that J2/2 = 0.0005413134 and can be discarded in first approximation, it results that formulae from 1911 and 2015 are equal.
..........................
Hertz 2: BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: Use what's derived from the 1915 paper, the 1911 paper wasn't ready for prime time.
NOW: Read above, idiot.
Again, the 1915 paper is the basis for GR, not the 1911 paper.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 1: And the target of this thread is TO MOCK AT the proposition that GRAVITY INFLUENCES FREQUENCY GENERATORS of any kind.
Moroney 1: They don't. Gravity influences remote MEASUREMENTS of clocks (frequency generators). Astronomers do it all the time.
NOW: Inventing stuff.
Pound-Repka is not inventing stuff. Nor are redshifts from light coming
from near neutron stars, black holes or even our sun.
Post by Richard Hertz
Anything is possible in Moroney's world, as long as the doctrine for retarded relativists is preserved from truth.
Slipping back into crankspeak.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: AGAIN: THE IDIOTIC (2a) FORMULA FROM THE 1911 PAPER IS USED TODAY, AND COMPRISES 80% OF THE TOTAL CALCULATED
SHIFT THAT IS ALLEGEDLY CORRECTED IN GNSS, ETC.
Moroney 2: And...? A formula is correct or incorrect, not "idiotic" or "stupid". If you think it's incorrect, prove it. But since the GPS, GNSS,
etc. use it AND THEY WORK, it sure looks like that "idiotic" formula is correct!
NOW: A formula can be WRONG AND IDIOTIC,
But this one is correct by experiment. I cannot see how a correct
formula could be 'stupid' or 'idiotic' if it's correct. Is nature
'idiotic'?
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 1: I'm good decoding people's purposes and,
Moroney 1: Most definitely NOT! All your kooky stories of what scientists were really up to 100+ years ago! Laughable!
NOW: I'm good at that. For instance, I decode that you are an idiot with idiotic purposes in life.
And you fail at decoding someone's purpose yet again!
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: If you poke your nose in "not your business" comment, addressed to Paul, you come out looking as an imbecile.
Moroney 2: Nope. Usenet is public postings. Anyone who cares can see and comment on anything you post. If it's "not my business",
send it to Paul via email. Would you print private love letters to your sweetheart in the newspaper and demand that nobody read that newspaper? Also the fact remains. You do an awful job at interpreting other peoples' purposes and actions.
NOW: I'm good at that.
Dunning-Kruger validated yet again.
Post by Richard Hertz
You use every tool in your toolbox to distort or change comments from others at this site. But you suck being
a sophist and using fallacies and derogatory comments, as Bodkin and JanPB do. At least the other retarded, Dono, is quite direct.
Dono is correct even if overly direct.

For example, you really must have been born as a cretin, you are one
now, and you will eventually die as a cretin.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 16:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Or rather a bizarre misinterpretation of an exchange by myself and an
anti-relativity crank.
Post by Richard Hertz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen 1: The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz
BY DEFINITION. So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second. On the geoid, at the top of Mont
Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
..........................
Hertz 1: Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
Moroney 1: No, he's right. All clocks by definition tick one second per second. This is necessary if the first postulate is true.
It is only when comparing REMOTE (to each other) clocks to each other (using light/photons) when direct comparison isn't
possible, is when there can be a difference.
Now: You and Paul are both wrong. A definition of time, stated on a BIMP document, is in conflict with the real world.
Had you read the firsts posts here, you'd acknowledge that maintaining such statement is a chimera, because reality forces
to accept that here, on Earth, advanced countries only achieve UTC time sync with a difference in the order of ± 10 nsec. And
these is only for 14 countries or less. The rest of countries are WELL above such difference with UTC(BIMP).
The inaccuracy of currently implemented technology has nothing to do
with the first postulate application that a clock ticks one second per
second locally, regardless of where it is.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: NOT YOUR BELOVED ATOMIC CLOCKS, DETUNED PRIOR LAUNCH, AS YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT.
Moroney 2: Yes, the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites. If they divide the Cs frequency by 9192631770 they'll get a tick at
exactly 1 second per tick, as verified by an observer. [insert whine about there's no astronaut riding a GPS satellite, the GPS specs
use "would observe" etc.] The existence of a DIFFERENT signal, dividing Cs by 9192631774.1 doesn't change that.
NOW: No!
Yes. This is a simple comparison of a ground level clock and the SIGNAL
transmitted from the remote clock to the ground clock.
Post by Richard Hertz
And this is a proof or your regular resort to fallacies and "straw man" arguments.
Pound-Rebka is not a "straw man" argument. Nor was Gravity Probe 1. Nor
are GPS (GNSS, GALILEO, BAIDOU etc.) satellites.
Post by Richard Hertz
If such division could be achieved (not
possible with down-scalers, because prime numbers decomposition don't provide exact multipliers),
You can divide down by any integer ratio by dividers in both the VCO
path and the frequency from the Cs generator inputs into the phase
comparison circuit.
Post by Richard Hertz
you would get a NOISY LOW
FREQUENCY MODULATED RESIDUAL: 1 sec ± ΔT(t).
They have a serious low pass filter involved. This means it takes some
time to lock but also means it stays locked. A proper analysis by a
qualified engineer (excludes yourself) would explain this.
Post by Richard Hertz
Hertz 2: And BY DEFINITION means something written in a document, not what lab experiments show when comparing measurement
after measurement, either for c or for Cs fo.
Moroney 2: Exactly. That's why the definition of a second specifies the exact number, and that the Cs clock is local, which the theoretical
astronaut is necessary to measure a satellite's frequency. Obviously a satellite whizzing overhead by thousands of miles at high speeds
isn't exactly local!
NOW: You are digressing, playing with fallacies at the same time.
Nope. Explaining how the definitions are interpreted.
Post by Richard Hertz
..........................
Hertz 2: So, shut up and obey. Repeat after Paul: ONE SECOND IS ONE SECOND PER SECOND!
Moroney 2: Looks like your crank "cult" thinking is back.
..........................
Hertz 2: A fucking circular thought,
Moroney 2: Nope. It just means you can have a whole bunch of clocks and clock-like things, all different kinds perhaps, if they are good
clocks they ALL will tick in lockstep with the Cs clock defining the second, one second per second.
..........................
Hertz 2: but you relativists are used to such schizophrenic view of the world,
Moroney 2: There's that crank word again! Projection.
All those clocks ticking one second per second means the clocks are
working correctly as clocks despite different designs or whatever. Clock
also includes time dependent effects. If the decay of a radioactive
substance is locally monitored, its half-life will be the same
regardless of whether it's on the moon, the ground etc. As measured locally.
In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Post by Michael Moroney
Yes. There are many physics experiments which need precise time
measurement more accurate than our wobbly earth can provide.
And there is GPS too, which needs precise time measurement
more accurate than the toys of your idiot gurus can provide.
Post by Michael Moroney
earth is good to 1 second per 18 months or so (~20 parts per billion),
atomic clocks can and do do better
The people doing real measurement professionally for
real, not just in some moronic gedankens (GPS
staff) didn't share your opinion, stupid Mike.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Richard Hertz
NOW: A formula can be WRONG AND IDIOTIC,
But this one is correct by experiment. I cannot see how a correct
formula could be 'stupid' or 'idiotic' if it's correct. Is nature
Stupid Mike, it was your idiot guru announcing it, not
any nature.
Post by Michael Moroney
For example, you really must have been born as a cretin, you are one
now, and you will eventually die as a cretin.
And in the meantime in the real world GPS clocks will
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did, ignoring stupid Mike and his idiot gurus
screaming that they're FORCED to measure their
idiocies.
carl eto
2021-10-13 20:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And in the meantime in the real world GPS clocks will
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did, ignoring stupid Mike and his idiot gurus
screaming that they're FORCED to measure their

idiocies.

A atomic clock detects time which is not the same as measuring the time a radio wave propagates a specific distance. Two total different animals.
Paul B. Andersen
2021-10-13 19:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Richard always snip his own words, hoping that nobody will notice.
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
Hilarious, no? :-D
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
The above is utter nonsense, and can only be written by someone
who is ignorant of GR.

Let's look closer to point 2) above:

A slightly altered though experiment:

Let a transmitter be in circular orbit around the Earth in the
equatorial plane at the altitude equal to the Moon's average
altitude. Let the transmitted frequency be fₘ = 9192631770 Hz

Let a receiver at the Earth move along equator (ship in the Pacific?)
in such a way that the transmitter at the time of reception is seen
stationary at zenith.
("Seen" not taken literally, the receiving antenna is vertical.)

According to GR, the received frequency is:

fₑ ≈ fₘ⋅[1+(GM/c²)⋅(1/r₁ − 1/r₂)+(v₁²−v₂²)/(2⋅c²)]

where:
Gravitational constant G = 6.67384E-11 Nm²/kg²
Mass of the Earth M = 5.97219E24 kg
Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
Radius of the Earth r₁ = 6.378E6 m
Radius of transmitter orbit r₂ = 0.3844E9 m
Speed of receiver in ECI frame v₁ = 16.6 m/s
Speed of transmitter in ECI frame v₂ = 1001 m/s

fₑ ≈ fₘ⋅(1+6.78207e-10) = 9192631776.23451 Hz

The point is that the received frequency is blue shifted to
9192631776.23451 Hz, BECAUSE the emitted frequency of the
transmitter still is 9192631770Hz.

You said that the clock in moon orbit would oscillate at
9192631776.23451 Hz, which is nonsense.
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
The above are indisputable facts.

The following is irrelevant babble.
Post by Richard Hertz
Paul, instead of me displaying utter ignorance, this is ONE MORE CASE of you displaying your UTTER IMBECILITY.
i'm the one who made an OP, in a heated thread months ago, about HOW cesium and rubidium clocks worked. I'm the one, also, that
wrote about the quantum phase noise of about ± 100 Hz with a gaussian distribution. That OP meant that, in the case of cesium, the
energy of the % of electrons that perfom the hyperfine transition is randomly distributed around a value Eo, giving an emission of
EM waves (photons, if you will) with an average frequency fo = 9192631770 Hz ± 100 Hz (Gauss distribution). I also wrote (with the
help of HP specs for atomic clocks and papers dealing the subject) that cesium was a better choice than rubidium (10x) in terms
of long term stability.
This isn't about how atomic clocks work.

You said that according to Einstein,
"clocks [that] provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at
the average ground level for the geoid Earth then, a given cesium
atomic clock that provides such frequency .. If it's brought to
the Moon surface would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz.

This displays you confusion and utter ignorance of GR.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-13 20:01:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The point is that the received frequency is blue shifted to
9192631776.23451 Hz, BECAUSE the emitted frequency of the
transmitter still is 9192631770Hz.
Sorry, poor trash. To evaluate the real value of the insane
fartings of your idiot guru - you have to use the words
as HE meant them.
For him a second was BY DEFINITION 1/(24*60*60) of a day
and thus the frequency of Cs was varying.
carl eto
2021-10-13 20:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Its seem pretty obvious to me that it is not intensity of the radio waves since the signals are continuous and it would be difficult if the impossible using the time. Jackson
Richard Hertz
2021-10-13 22:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:23:51 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Paul: Now you are showing your teeth, but in a nasty, vindictive way.
A CHEATER always think that everyone else behave like him/her, also a LIAR. You're acting in both ways.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
If it's accepted that cesium atomic clocks provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at the average ground level for the
1) Oscillate at 9192631752.92623 Hz IF IT IS BROUGHT DOWN to 1737.4 Km from the center of the Earth (Moon radius).
This implies a difference of -17,073771 Hz here, on Earth (dismissing heat and pressure. It's a thought experiment).
Hilarious, no? :-D
You have an strange sense of humor, even when you bite the bait like an idiot relativistic catfish. Don't blame me, but yourself.

Apply your formula fₑ ≈ fₘ⋅[1+(GM/c²)⋅(1/r₁ − 1/r₂)+(v₁²−v₂²)/(2⋅c²)], WITHOUT the SR part and you have the gravitational
shift fₑ ≈ fₘ⋅[1+(GM/c²)⋅(1/r₁ − 1/r₂)], which is EXACTLY THE 1911 (2a) formula. Nothing wrong in the way I used it. After all,
the Earth is handled as a fucking dot for 350 years. What is your problem if I use it in this way "dismissing heat and pressure.
It's a thought experiment".?

Go to complain to whom Mudrak credit the formula for Δf/f: [2]. N. Ashby, ”Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning
System”, 2006, https://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

I used the part for gravitational blue-shifting, dismissing J2.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.
The above is utter nonsense, and can only be written by someone who is ignorant of GR.
Read the above comment, relativist. This thread is about gravitational shifting, not Mercury's perihelion or deflection of light by the Sun.
Do your crappy thought experiment in your own thread. Don't pollute this one with your idiocies.

<snip your shitty example and further comments>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
This isn't about how atomic clocks work.
Now you pretend to change the reasons by which I wrote the OP here? Are you crazy?
Post by Paul B. Andersen
You said that according to Einstein, "clocks [that] provide an stable oscillation of 9192631770 Hz at
the average ground level for the geoid Earth then, a given cesium atomic clock that provides such frequency ..
If it's brought to the Moon surface would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz.
This displays you confusion and utter ignorance of GR.
Apply your own formula, in the form Δf/f = ≈ (GM/c²)⋅(1/r₁ − 1/r₂), to the Moon-Earth difference in gravitational potential
and realize that it's correct.

2) If it's brought to the Moon surface, then it would oscillate with Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = G/(c².Rm). (Mm - Me) = 2.521274917 . 10E-09,
and the clock would oscillate at 9192631746.82285 Hz, with a difference of 23.177151905 Hz from a twin clock being at Earth.

After all, CORRECTING AN ERROR I DID by mistakenly using r₁ = r₂, you have AT GROUND LEVEL:

Φ₁/c² = G.Me/r₁c² ---> Gravitational potential on ground level (Earth), oscillation is defined as 9192631770 Hz for Cs.
Φ₂/c² = G.Mm/r₂c² --> Gravitational potential on ground level (Moon).

We are talking about gravitational potentials, neglecting any other influence of celestial bodies. So, IT'S PERFECTLY
VALID to transport gravitational potentials between Earth and Moon surfaces and state that

Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² = (Φ₂ - Φ₁)/c² = G/c² . (Mm/r₂ - Me/r₁), which account for changes in GRAV. POTENTIAL between two bodies.

Any problem with this simplification? If Cs "premium" oscillation is ADOPTED AS 9192631770 Hz on Earth's surface, this
elementary formula adapt the behavior on the Moon surface, given a potential on Earth's surface.

I'm sure you're dying inside because I manipulated gravitational potentials in this way. But it happens that this is TRUE, CORRECT,
VALID (you name it), either you LIKE OR NOT.

And if you are MAD because of the above, go and complain with Einstein's ghost and his 1911 (2a) stupid equation, derived
by applying E=mc² to gravitational potential and gravitational EXCESS mass. Read the 1911 paper.

Gravitational potentials are manifestations of newtonian gravitational fields (generated by a body with mass m).
Or, go to complain to Poisson's or Gauss's ghosts, if you prefer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_equation

----------------------------------------------------------------------- Newtonian gravity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of a gravitational field g due to an attracting massive object of density ρ, Gauss's law for gravity in differential form
can be used to obtain the corresponding Poisson equation for gravity,

∇ ⋅ g = − 4πGρ

Since the gravitational field is conservative (and irrotational), it can be expressed in terms of a scalar potential Φ,

g = − ∇ϕ

Substituting into Gauss's law

∇ ⋅ ( −∇ϕ ) = − 4πGρ

yields Poisson's equation for gravity,

∇²ϕ = 4πGρ

If the mass density is zero, Poisson's equation reduces to Laplace's equation. The corresponding Green's function can be used to
calculate the potential at distance r from a central point mass m (i.e., the fundamental solution). In three dimensions the potential is

ϕ (r) = − G.m/r

which is equivalent to Newton's law of universal gravitation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Wikipedia excerpt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the final formula has UNIVERSAL APPLICATION, here, there or everywhere in the Universe.

Keep your jealousy in place. You, even when a retired Professor with a degree in Astronomy, are not the designated guardian
of Newton's or Einstein's theories, if such RIDICULOUS title exists. These thread is not about GR in general, but the time enduring
application of Einstein's 1911 (2a) formula, which survived GR in the elementary applications of Schwarzschild's solution to GPS.

Stop being a jerk, Paul. It doesn't fit you.
Paul B. Andersen
2021-10-14 07:17:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Stop being a jerk, Paul. It doesn't fit you.
But it fits you pretty well!
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hertz
2021-10-14 18:11:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
Stop being a jerk, Paul. It doesn't fit you.
But it fits you pretty well!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Post by Richard Hertz
Yet again you display your utter ignorance. :-D
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Then, according to the above statement, the scientists at the German PTB are some kind of RETARDED PEOPLE?

Excerpt from the German PTB site (Read the OP in this thread, at any case):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.

In order to compensate for the gravitational time dilatation, the rates of atomic clocks located at an altitude h above sea level are corrected by a relative amount of -1.09.10E-16 (h/m).

The PTB clocks for example are located at heights of h = 78 until 79 m so that the relative rate correction is about -8.6.10E-15.
This takes into account that the atomic second intervals realised by the PTB clocks are shorter by 8.6.10E-15 than the SI second
produced by a caesium clock located on the geoid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Andersen
2021-10-16 13:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
Stop being a jerk, Paul. It doesn't fit you.
But it fits you pretty well!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Yes, of course.
The following are facts.
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hertz
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Then, according to the above statement, the scientists at the German PTB are some kind of RETARDED PEOPLE?
No, but they are not very good in expressing themself.
(Or they don't know better?)
It's very strange that UTC isn't mentioned even if it obviously
is what they are talking about.
Post by Richard Hertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied.
This is plain wrong!

What he (assuming that he know what he is talking about) meant
to say was:
An SI clock will stay in synch with UTC only if it is on the geoid.

But I am not sure that the person who stated the above could
know what he was talking about. Or was something lost in
the translation?
Post by Richard Hertz
In order to compensate for the gravitational time dilatation, the rates of atomic clocks located at an altitude h above sea level are corrected by a relative amount of -1.09.10E-16 (h/m).
Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
Post by Richard Hertz
The PTB clocks for example are located at heights of h = 78 until 79 m so that the relative rate correction is about -8.6.10E-15.
This takes into account that the atomic second intervals realised by the PTB clocks are shorter by 8.6.10E-15 than the SI second
produced by a caesium clock located on the geoid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
second per second unless it is on the geoid.

To stay in synch with UTC a clock at altitude h
must advance ≈(1 - gh/c²) seconds per second.
That's not a SI-clock.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-16 15:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
You don't know your Shit very well, do you? There is an
infinity of other solutions.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
second per second unless it is on the geoid.
Sorry, trash, you're dreaming. It's not you deciding what
the word "second" mean. Besides, even treating your
pathetic ISO seriously, things were different in 1905.
In the meaning of "second" appliked by your idiot guru
UTC clocks are perfect.
Richard Hertz
2021-10-16 16:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 12:51:11 PM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

What is funny (or sad) for me that Paul, the relativist, is willing to state that the German PTB site is wrong,
as well as the entire staff of serious and meticulous Germans involved in this subject, because HE IS RIGHT
and an entire official agency is WRONG!

And that's because his EGO is more powerful that his devotion to Einstein, so he can DISMISS einstenian GR corrections
(which he would support otherwise), in order to SAVE FACE for his unfortunate assertions about atomic clocks.

I think that he found himself between a rock and a hard place, and decided to put HIM before actual facts.

Not good, Paul, not good. Have the decency to admit that you was wrong. Everybody mess things up eventually,
so nothing happens if you admit that you made a mistake. We are only humans, not machines, so we can do wrong
from time to time.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
You don't know your Shit very well, do you? There is an
infinity of other solutions.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
second per second unless it is on the geoid.
Sorry, trash, you're dreaming. It's not you deciding what
the word "second" mean. Besides, even treating your
pathetic ISO seriously, things were different in 1905.
In the meaning of "second" appliked by your idiot guru
UTC clocks are perfect.
carl eto
2021-10-16 17:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Einstein is justifying Maxwell theory using "Lorentz transformation" where Lorentz alters the dimensions of Maxwell equations to justify Maxwell theory but altering the dimensions of Maxwell equations does not change the fact that Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous.




Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum), In addition, the inertial mass is used to justify the electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam or 1 W X-ray (dt = .1s) does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.
Paul B. Andersen
2021-10-17 20:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
What is funny (or sad) for me that Paul, the relativist, is willing to state that the German PTB site is wrong,
as well as the entire staff of serious and meticulous Germans involved in this subject, because HE IS RIGHT
and an entire official agency is WRONG!
The following statement is plain wrong!:
"Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised
by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."

I have a hard time believing that this is written by
a "scientists at the German PTB " as you claim.

So either it is written by a scientist who is extremely
bad in expressing himself, or you have translated
a German statement wrongly, or it is written by a journalist
(or similar) who has tried to paraphrase a statement he
didn't understand.

I think the latter is the most probable.
It could be a very sloppy paraphrase of a statement like
the following (which is correct, if poorly stated):

"Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's
gravitational potential, the UTC second could only be realised
by SI-clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."

See below how the correction should be.
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Since the UTC is a theoretical time which simultaneous
in the ECI frame is the same everywhere, independent
of its altitude, (like GPS-time), no SI clock will
stay in synch with UTC unless it is at the geoid.
The point is that a clock showing UTC does NOT advance one
second per second unless it is on the geoid.
To stay in synch with UTC a clock at altitude h
must advance ≈(1 - gh/c²) seconds per second.
That's not a SI-clock.
-------------

The following statements of mine are simple facts
which no scientist at the German PTB will dispute:

The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in
the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.

So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second
per second.

On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon -
you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.

Case closed.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hertz
2021-10-17 21:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 5:25:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>
"Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised
by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied." I have a hard time believing that this is written by a "scientists
at the German PTB " as you claim.
Dono, I mean Paul, I don't claim ANYTHING. I just quoted exactly what is written there. If you had read the firsts posts, you'd
have the link to fact-check by yourself.

--------------------------------------
Richard Hertz Oct 11, 2021, 1:32:40 PM (6 days ago)

The time scales TAI and EAL
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/ag-441/realisation-of-legal-time-in-germany/the-time-scales-tai-and-eal.html

Quote:
--------------------------------------
So either it is written by a scientist who is extremely bad in expressing himself, or you have translated a German statement
wrongly, or it is written by a journalist (or similar) who has tried to paraphrase a statement he didn't understand.
I think the latter is the most probable. It could be a very sloppy paraphrase of a statement like the following (which is correct,
"Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the UTC second could only be realised
by SI-clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied."
See below how the correction should be.
Now you ARE CORRECTING what the official PTB site says? Are you INSANE? Again, fact-check it:

--------------------------------------
Richard Hertz Oct 11, 2021, 1:32:40 PM (6 days ago)

The time scales TAI and EAL
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/ag-441/realisation-of-legal-time-in-germany/the-time-scales-tai-and-eal.html

Quote:
--------------------------------------

<snip>
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
So a Cs clock based on this definition will always advance one second per second.
On the geoid, at the top of Mont Everest, in a satellite, on the Moon - you name it. The clock will run at its normal rate.
Case closed.
CASE CLOSED MY ASS. I'm lost 99% of the respect that I had to you. It's sad to realize that you have EGO issues beyond rational minds.

If you have some DECENCY LEFT, post your apologies for accusing me of a lying, even when I was the one who posted THE LINK!

Now, I'll copy&paste by BRUTE FORCE (without post-edition), the entire web page. If it hurts you so much, just stop reading right now.

Shame on you, Paul.

https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/ag-441/realisation-of-legal-time-in-germany/the-time-scales-tai-and-eal.html
**********************************************************************************************************

The time scales TAI and EAL
The time scales TAI and EAL

International Atomic Time TAI
The calculation of TAI and EAL
TAI and the gravitational time dilatation

International Atomic Time TAI

TAI (Temps Atomique International) is calculated by the International Bureau for Weights and Measures (BIPM) and published monthly in the "Circular T" in the form of time differences to other free atomic time scales. The difference between TAI and TA(PTB) on February 1, 2015, for example, was 2005,7 ns.

The starting point of TAI was fixed such that on January 1, 1958, at 0:00 TAI approximately agreed with the corresponding instant of the astronomical time scale UT1. From then to the end of 1999, 1,325,376,000 atomic seconds elapsed. However, after this period, the earth had not yet completed its 15,340th revolution; 31.3 seconds were lacking (rotational angle 0.13°). Due to this systematic deviation between TAI and the time scale proportional to the earth's rotation, TAI is not used in everyday life to date events. Instead, the time scale UTC is used.


The calculation of TAI and EAL

The method of calculating TAI was modified several times in response to the changing requirements and the quality of the clocks involved. The calculation is based on the comparisons of the time scales realized at the individual time institutes among one another as well as on comparisons of the individual (nearly 400 in total) clocks within each institute. The BIPM applies a specific calculation method (ALGOS) to first determine the rate instabilities of all clocks involved. The smaller the instability, the greater the assigned statistic weight with which a clock contributes to averaging the clock rates. The rate itself and the specified uncertainty of the clock are not taken into account.

The ALGOS algorithm limits the maximum relative statistic weight of a clock. This limitation enhances the reliability of the time scale even if it implies that the quality of the best clocks is not fully utilized. The universal mean thus formed is called EAL (Échelle Atomique Libre, free atomic time scale) and can in some respect be compared with the TA scales of the individual time institutes.

The scale unit of EAL is not in accord with the SI second. This was already found in the early 1970s through comparison measurements against the primary clock CS1 of PTB and later confirmed by the National Research Council, Canada, and the National Bureau of Standards, USA. Since the beginning of 1977, TAI has therefore been obtained from EAL by means of frequency adjustments. The relative deviation between TAI and EAL is in the range of 10-13.

For this purpose, EAL is compared with the primary clocks of the time institutes in France, Japan, Russia, USA and with CS1, CS2, CSF1 and CSF2 of PTB. TAI is adjusted in infrequent small steps of less than relativly 1·10-15 because otherwise the instability of the time scale would be increased. Instead, the BIPM monthly publishes the calculated mean deviation between the scale unit of TAI and the SI second as it was realized with the primary clocks involved. In June 2013, for example, this deviation was 0.0·10-15 and was known with an uncertainty of 0.3·10-15.


TAI and the gravitational time dilatation

When time scale information is transferred from one reference frame to another, the transformation laws of the General Relativity must be taken into account. TAI is defined in a geocentric reference system. Its scale unit is the SI second as realised at the mean sea level of the rotating earth. The corresponding gravitational equipotential surface is also known as the geoid.

Due to the relativistic time dilatation caused by the earth's gravitational potential, the SI second could only be realised by atomic clocks at sea level if no corrections were applied. In order to compensate for the gravitational time dilatation, the rates of atomic clocks located at an altitude h above sea level are corrected by a relative amount of -1.09.10-16 (h/m). The PTB clocks for example are located at heights of h = 78 until 79 m so that the relative rate correction is about -8.6.10-15. This takes into account that the atomic second intervals realised by the PTB clocks are shorter by 8.6.10-15 than the SI second produced by a caesium clock located on the geoid.

**********************************************************************************************************
Maciej Wozniak
2021-10-18 05:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
The following statements of mine are simple facts
The frequency of the photon associated with the hyperfine transition in
the Cs atom in ground-state is 9192631770 Hz BY DEFINITION.
Sorry, trash, you're not the one deciding what definition
of second is, and your fellow idiots from ISO are neither.
But even if they were - for your idiot guru in 1905 another
definition was the valid one, and thus the GPS clocks
(the ones indicating t'=t) are valid tools to test
his idiocies.

Loading...