Discussion:
Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!
(too old to reply)
rhertz
2024-09-24 22:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every
experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.

The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.

Read this and cry in shame, if you support this garbage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

The ridiculous defense of each of the supporters of relativity, in order
to support SR, is an offense to the intelligence of even gullible
laymen.

One line of thought is that acceleration/deceleration influence the
results. Other line of thought is that there are THREE frames of
reference involved. And metaphysics explanations keep appearing.

But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.

Shameful link, but a clear proof that the relativity pseudoscience is
supported ONLY by insufferable charlatans.

This FAIL should be enough to DISCARD relativity as something of value.

Then, you have lists of SR/GR physical experiments (ask Paul for it),
which are plagued of FRAUDULENT DATA (every single one of them), either
by data hacking, statistical manipulation of results, data
cherry-picking and just PLAIN LIES.


Between the most famous HOAX, you have:

- Pound-Rebka
- Hafele-Keating
- Gravity Probe A and B
- Shapiro time delay effect (outrageous)
- Eddington 1919 HOAX
- THEORETICAL analysis for perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
- Light red/blue shifting
- Black holes existence
- Gravitational waves existence
- Support of GR for the BB Theory
- ANY test for time dilation
- ZERO results for length contraction
- ANYTHING coming out of particle accelerators experiments
- Etc, etc, etc.

RELATIVITY = FRAUDULENT, METAPHYSICAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Sustained for the benefits of a few, at the expense of retarded people.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-09-25 11:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.
So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?

Consider the following thought experiment:
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high
acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.

If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
The Lorentz transform is:
t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
x' = γ(x - vt)
inverse:
t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
x = γ(x' + vt')

γ = √(1 − v²/c²)


The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.

You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.

Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.
You won't even try.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-25 15:59:12 UTC
Permalink
*************************************************************
The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.


You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.


Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.
You won't even try.


It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.


Isn't it? :-D
***********************************************************

Paul, I don't want to intellectually abuse you, so I'll explain this
thing as you were 5 y.o.

No equations needed. By the way, you didn't care to read the Wiki link
that I posted, which contains a lot of defensive arguments on this
matter.

SIMPLY PUT:

You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).

You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.



Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.

CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E',
which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE
SLOWLY THAN HIM.

CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I
PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!

The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both
humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.

We don't need any idiocy generated by the Lorentz toys, to involve round
trips and THE VERIFICATION that one of them has AGED MORE THAN THE
OTHER. It depends on whose reference frame the round trip is executed.

As you could read (you still can, can't you?), no mathematics is
involved in THE REASONING FROM THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS.

Only the central points of SR are applied WITH LOGIC, which I'm afraid
is an ability negated to you DUE TO YOUR DECADES LONG EXPOSURE TO THE
DOGMAS OF THE CULT OF RELATIVITY.

You CAN'T think outside the box, isn't that true?
rhertz
2024-09-25 16:39:22 UTC
Permalink
And regarding the fantastic HOAX of the Hafele-Keating experiment, I
have analyzed the published data MORE IN DEPTH, and the hoax plot
thickens.


As you, viking relativity warrior, are very prone to spit numbers and
simple equations, that you repeat and reuse like a parrot, I address you
to ANALYZE AND JUSTIFY this part of the Hafele paper:

**********************************************************************
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele

https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
*********************************************************************

Go to Page 8 (part of it I quote):

------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the assumption of an
equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude is not
essential, it does simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the
magnitude of expected relativistic effects. For an equatorial circumna
igation with constant ground speed v (m/sec) and altitude h (m), the
predicted relativistic time gain for the flying clock over a similar
reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's surface is given by


τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-( 2RΩv + v²) /2c² ] τ₀ (1)

where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying and
ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/sec) its angular
speed; g (m/sec²) is the surface value of the acceleration of gravity;
and c (m/sec) is the speed of light. In Equation 1, the GROUND SPEED is
positive for eastward and negative for westward circumnavigations.
------------------------------------------------------------------

PAY ATTENTION TO THE "GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THE
SPEED OF THE PLANES!!

Now, I quote this SHAMEFUL ASSERTION OF HAFELE:

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

The actual time gain Δτ is a bit more instructive than the time
ratio of Equation 1 and it follows from multiplication of Equation 1 by
τ₀. Because standard clocks keep the same time while sitting on the
ground anywhere on Earth (at average sea level and to this order of
approximation), only the actual time in flight during a trip contributes
to relativistic effects.

However, ground time does contribute to increasing the random,
unpredictable time offset and therefore to the threshold for detection
of relativistic effects.
(Relativistic effects were not detected during previous flying clock
trips because they accumulate only while the clocks are in flight, and
for those trips most of the time was spent on the ground.) Suppose for
the moment that ground time, for example, for refueling stops, is
negligibly small compared with the time it takes to fly around the
world. Then the time recorded by the ground clock during the
circumnavigation is given by

τ₀ = 2πR/|v|

Solving for Δτ and inserting this value for τ₀ in Equation 1 gives


Δτ = 2πRgh/(!v!c²)- 2πR² Ωv/(!v!c²) - πR !v!/2c²


Figure 1 is a graph of this equation showing Δτ versus v for altitudes
of O, 10, and 20 kilometers.

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

(See attached Figure 1)

Now, Paul, take the time to EXTRACT the value of !v! from the cryptic
reasoning of Hafele. ALSO, try to calculate HOW IN HELL Hafele derived a
value for τ₀, IF SUCH DATA WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AT USNO (Washington).


SEE IF YOU CAN REACH THESE VALUES (I DARE YOU), AND JUSTIFY THEM!!!

τ₀ = 7071.48 ± 691.78 nsec

|v| = -1753.188 ± 81.659 m/sec

THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TELL ME THAT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS NOT A FRAUD!


GROUND SPEED! WHAT PAIR OF CRETINS, PLUS ACCOMPLISHES!

AND YOU DARE TO DEFEND THIS EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS??

DO THE MATH, RELATIVIST, AND TELL ME I'M WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT!
Paul B. Andersen
2024-09-25 20:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
As you, viking relativity warrior, are very prone to spit numbers and
simple equations, that you repeat and reuse like a parrot, I address you
**********************************************************************
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
*********************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the assumption of an
equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude is not
essential, it does simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the
magnitude of expected relativistic effects. For an equatorial circumna
igation with constant ground speed v (m/sec) and altitude h (m), the
predicted relativistic time gain for the flying clock over a similar
reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's surface is given by
τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-( 2RΩv + v²) /2c² ] τ₀ (1)
where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying and
ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/sec) its angular
speed; g (m/sec²) is the surface value of the acceleration of gravity;
and c (m/sec) is the speed of light. In Equation 1, the GROUND SPEED is
positive for eastward and negative for westward circumnavigations.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAY ATTENTION TO THE "GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THE
SPEED OF THE PLANES!!
"GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH ??? What may that be?

Your ability to read a text and misinterpret what you read never cease
to amaze! (And amuse! :-D )

v is the ground speed of the aeroplane.
RΩ is the speed of the clocks at USNO in the ECI-frame.
Post by rhertz
----------------------------------------------------------
The actual time gain Δτ is a bit more instructive than the time
ratio of Equation 1 and it follows from multiplication of Equation 1 by
τ₀. Because standard clocks keep the same time while sitting on the
ground anywhere on Earth (at average sea level and to this order of
approximation), only the actual time in flight during a trip contributes
to relativistic effects.
However, ground time does contribute to increasing the random,
unpredictable time offset and therefore to the threshold for detection
of relativistic effects.
(Relativistic effects were not detected during previous flying clock
trips because they accumulate only while the clocks are in flight, and
for those trips most of the time was spent on the ground.) Suppose for
the moment that ground time, for example, for refueling stops, is
negligibly small compared with the time it takes to fly around the
world. Then the time recorded by the ground clock during the
circumnavigation is given by
τ₀ = 2πR/|v|
Solving for Δτ and inserting this value for τ₀ in Equation 1 gives
Δτ = 2πRgh/(!v!c²)- 2πR² Ωv/(!v!c²) - πR !v!/2c²
Figure 1 is a graph of this equation showing Δτ versus v for altitudes
of O, 10, and 20 kilometers.
----------------------------------------------------------
And what is your problem?
Post by rhertz
(See attached Figure 1)
Now, Paul, take the time to EXTRACT the value of !v! from the cryptic
reasoning of Hafele. ALSO, try to calculate HOW IN HELL Hafele derived a
value for τ₀, IF SUCH DATA WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AT USNO (Washington).
Don't be ridiculous.
The start of the trip was when the four clocks were compared to
MEAN(USNO) for the last time before the trip,
The end of the trip was when the four clocks were compared to
MEAN(USNO) for the first time after the trip.
τ₀ is the duration of the trip measured by MEN(USNO).
See fig2.

The length of the trip is 2πR, so the average speed of the aeroplane is:
|v| = 2πR/τ₀

and τ₀ = 2πR/|v|
Post by rhertz
SEE IF YOU CAN REACH THESE VALUES (I DARE YOU), AND JUSTIFY THEM!!!
τ₀ = 7071.48 ± 691.78 nsec
τ₀ = 65.42 hours for Eastward trip.
Post by rhertz
|v| = -1753.188 ± 81.659 m/sec
|v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
Post by rhertz
THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TELL ME THAT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS NOT A FRAUD!
GROUND SPEED! WHAT PAIR OF CRETINS, PLUS ACCOMPLISHES!
AND YOU DARE TO DEFEND THIS EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS??
DO THE MATH, RELATIVIST, AND TELL ME I'M WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT!
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-25 21:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Paul. you are PROJECTING. And as a good cornered relativist, try to
divert the attention with something else, EXCEPT what I questioned.

I put these simple calculations for you TO LEARN, but I sincerely doubt
that you may go the first lines WITHOUT CRYING FOUL, like a little girl.



***************************************************************
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with 41
accumulated hours of flight.


FOR EASTWARD FLIGHT, CALCULATIONS:

τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18
τ - τ₀ = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184 ± 18

-πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184 ± 18

2.2043E-10 (918.456 + |v|) = -184 ± 18

918.456 + |v| = -184ns/2,2043E-10 ± 18ns/2,2043E-10

918,456 + |v| = -834,732 ± 81,659

|v| = -1753,188 ± 81,659 m/sec

τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18

(2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -2,602E-11

τ₀ = -184/-2,602E-11 ± 18/-2,602E-11

τ₀ = 7071,48 ± 691,78 nsec

τ₀ = 2πR/|v|

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


Two main things here:

1) So, the ground speed (which DOUBLES the plane's speed) is meaningful?
even when it DOESN'T ACCOUNT for differences plane-Earth going east or
west? SERIOUSLY?

2) In which rotten brain is possible to ACCEPT A THEORETICAL CALCULATION
OF THE LOCAL TIME MAINTAINED AT USNO LABS, USING SUCH IDIOTIC FORMULA?


I sincerely pity you, failed relativist (and, mainly, EE).

You don't want to SEE, because you're blinded by your faith in your
cult.
rhertz
2024-09-26 01:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
***************************************************************
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18
τ - τ₀ = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184 ± 18
-πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184 ± 18
2.2043E-10 (918.456 + |v|) = -184 ± 18
918.456 + |v| = -184ns/2,2043E-10 ± 18ns/2,2043E-10
918,456 + |v| = -834,732 ± 81,659
|v| = -1753,188 ± 81,659 m/sec
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18
(2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -2,602E-11
τ₀ = -184/-2,602E-11 ± 18/-2,602E-11
τ₀ = 7071,48 ± 691,78 nsec
τ₀ = 2πR/|v|
***************************************************************
Explain this HUGE DIFFERENCE if you can, relativistic genius:

τ₀ = 7071,48 ± 691,78 seconds (I wrote nsec above)

This is calculated through the "relativistic approximation"

(τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18 [dimensionless]

On the other hand, Hafele sugested this IDIOTIC formula for τ₀

τ₀ = 2πR/|v| = 2π x 6,315,000/1,753.188 sec = 22632.07318 seconds


TWO DIFFERENT VALUES, being the last one 26.1945% of the 86400 seconds
required for one entire rotation of Earth.

Now, would you be capable to INSERT the last value in the (τ - τ₀)
calculation?

Of course, you wouldn't dare, because the DIFFERENCES would skyrocket to
above 400%.

And all of the above IN THE WORDS OF HAFELE HIMSELF, in his 1972
publication.

When I say FRAUD, HOAX, GULLIBLE IDIOTIC READERS, I'm talking about
this.


If you want, we could RE-DISCUSS another HOAX: 1961 Pound-Rebka, or any
other "classic proof" of relativity of your choice.

I mean "classic" by "historical", not the modern crap, which is much
worse and authored by 10-15-20 imbeciles fraudsters.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-09-26 13:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
If you want, we could RE-DISCUSS another HOAX: 1961 Pound-Rebka, or any
other "classic proof" of relativity of your choice.
I won't waste time arguing with you, but I will merely refer you to
this article in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

In additional to 86% text authorship, I was responsible for the SVG
diagram and the animations.
Post by rhertz
I mean "classic" by "historical", not the modern crap, which is much
worse and authored by 10-15-20 imbeciles fraudsters.
Modern measurements greatly tighten the error bars.

At some level of measurement precision, it is expected that the
equivalence principle must eventually break down. So far it hasn't.

Gravitational redshift measurements provide a direct measure of
local position invariance, one of the three hypotheses underlying
the equivalence principle.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-09-27 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
If you want, we could RE-DISCUSS another HOAX: 1961 Pound-Rebka, or any
other "classic proof" of relativity of your choice.
I won't waste time arguing with you, but I will merely refer you to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
In additional to 86% text authorship, I was responsible for the SVG
diagram and the animations.
Post by rhertz
I mean "classic" by "historical", not the modern crap, which is much
worse and authored by 10-15-20 imbeciles fraudsters.
Modern measurements greatly tighten the error bars.
At some level of measurement precision, it is expected that the
equivalence principle must eventually break down. So far it hasn't.
Gravitational redshift measurements provide a direct measure of
local position invariance, one of the three hypotheses underlying
the equivalence principle.
I really don't understand why you should be against Pound-Rebka.
Although gravitational redshift was one of the classical tests of
general relativity, it is now universally recognized that ANY theory
of gravitation that respects the equivalence principle will predict
gravitational redshift. THIS INCLUDES NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION.

Just because Einstein predicted gravitational redshift does not mean
that it is wrong or doesn't exist.
rhertz
2024-09-27 02:41:50 UTC
Permalink
QUOTE:
**********************************************************************
I really don't understand why you should be against Pound-Rebka.
Although gravitational redshift was one of the classical tests of
general relativity, it is now universally recognized that ANY theory
of gravitation that respects the equivalence principle will predict
gravitational redshift. THIS INCLUDES NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION.


Just because Einstein predicted gravitational redshift does not mean
that it is wrong or doesn't exist.
**********************************************************************

Prokaryotic, we discussed a lot about this in the former forum.

Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/8BCY9o5PCAAJ

Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ


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

Even when I consider this a heavy task, I'll try to display the best of
what I wrote.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/1QuaIAmvBgAJ


This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the
1960 paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging
experiments.

This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma
rays frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of
gh/c² in terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz,
as given by Planck's formula E = h.f.

The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is
visible on its title:

"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".

Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that
deceptive but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper,
such topic appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had
"Einstein" embedded.

The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British
physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
"Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c²
for ANY EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to
use "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.

In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his
"heuristic" conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper.
Also, in the same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment,
referring to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe
forgetting that his 1960 paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements
EACH (using only 112 measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14
datasets, 8 were about the alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the
alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.

Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the
SECOND deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).

For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀|
varied from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the
einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED).

Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
|Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10
times the einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving
fact.

Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:

RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
------------------------------------------
Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)

Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.

This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in
denial or you are a gullible moron.

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

As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian
shape:

L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]

According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of
energy in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.

Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of
energy are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀
and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:

L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where

I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).

The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).

Fractional FWHM = Γ/2

In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in
the precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending
on the lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line
width Γ (eV).

The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can
be defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for
Fe⁵⁷:

τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec

ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h

Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV

Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)

RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)

So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:

- The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.

* The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization
of a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an
electric pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored.
Either γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL
cause ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.

* A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a slowly induced
Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the
source, transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.

* ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
detection of γ photons is:

------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.

------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.

------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.

------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins,
etc., except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not
accounted, like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound
acknowledged as potential sources of errors.

******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************

EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
RELATIVITY.

I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

To summarize about the IMPOSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTING DATA WHICH VERIFY A
SHIFT given by gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, in a short set of data that had a
RANDOM DISPERSION of ± 1.43E-12 (which configures NOISE 1,000 HIGHER
than what you PRETEND TO EXTRACT FROM DATASETS) was, is and will be
IMPOSSIBLE, unless you are a crook, a liar, a deceiver and else.

Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)

Had you said that Einstein's shift IS ENCODED WITH A KNOWN ALGORITHM, I
would approve the experiment, because the technique of wideband coding
of signals to hide them under noise is known since 1970, at least.

This technique was developed by Plessey and used for communications
during the Malvinas War in 1982. The signal was submerged into noise,
and it was impossible to even DETECT by the Argentinian military.

This technique, more elaborated, was used by the end of the '90s to
codify the 2G telephony, in open competition with the winner (European
GSM, based on TDM and used for more than 15 years, until the arrival of
3G, 4G and 5G.

But such pseudo-random encoding of Einstein's shift DIDN'T EXIST. Then,
to extract a shift of 2.42E-15 from a source with noise close to 10E-12
is absolutely RIDICULOUS, no matter which statistical tools you used to
COOK THE DATA. By the way, the receiver section was a GROSS MIX of
electromechanics and photonics, with a WIDE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY for
that epoch.

I strongly believe about this HOAX, because I have a life with more than
45 years spent working into THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY for military
purposes, besides other works (I was very prolific).

One of the most important applications of signal extraction from noise
IS the processing of radar's received signals UNDER HEAVY JAMMING. I
worked on this too, for many years.

Pound and Rebka are fraudsters with many accomplishes. Pound, years
later, changed his NARRATIVE when he started to speak publicly that he
had proven EM blue/red-shifting.

But, by 1981, NOBODY paid attention on what he said in different
seminars. He was toasted, done, and the scientific community turned
their back on him. The price for being a crook.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-09-27 05:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
**********************************************************************
I really don't understand why you should be against Pound-Rebka.
Although gravitational redshift was one of the classical tests of
general relativity, it is now universally recognized that ANY theory
of gravitation that respects the equivalence principle will predict
gravitational redshift. THIS INCLUDES NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION.
Just because Einstein predicted gravitational redshift does not mean
that it is wrong or doesn't exist.
**********************************************************************
Prokaryotic, we discussed a lot about this in the former forum.
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/8BCY9o5PCAAJ
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when I consider this a heavy task, I'll try to display the best of
what I wrote.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/1QuaIAmvBgAJ
[SNIP copy-paste of arguments from the above link]
Post by rhertz
To summarize about the IMPOSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTING DATA WHICH VERIFY A
SHIFT given by gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, in a short set of data that had a
RANDOM DISPERSION of ± 1.43E-12 (which configures NOISE 1,000 HIGHER
than what you PRETEND TO EXTRACT FROM DATASETS) was, is and will be
IMPOSSIBLE, unless you are a crook, a liar, a deceiver and else.
Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
Had you said that Einstein's shift IS ENCODED WITH A KNOWN ALGORITHM, I
would approve the experiment, because the technique of wideband coding
of signals to hide them under noise is known since 1970, at least.
This technique was developed by Plessey and used for communications
during the Malvinas War in 1982. The signal was submerged into noise,
and it was impossible to even DETECT by the Argentinian military.
This technique, more elaborated, was used by the end of the '90s to
codify the 2G telephony, in open competition with the winner (European
GSM, based on TDM and used for more than 15 years, until the arrival of
3G, 4G and 5G.
This is very interesting information. I appreciate when I learn things
from your posts.
Post by rhertz
But such pseudo-random encoding of Einstein's shift DIDN'T EXIST. Then,
to extract a shift of 2.42E-15 from a source with noise close to 10E-12
is absolutely RIDICULOUS, no matter which statistical tools you used to
COOK THE DATA. By the way, the receiver section was a GROSS MIX of
electromechanics and photonics, with a WIDE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY for
that epoch.
======================================================================
That is a rather absurd argument. Consider that the linewidth of the
cesium hyperfine resonance ranges from 1 to 10 Hz, depending on the
atomic beam or fountain configuration, interrogation time, and other
details of clock construction. By your argument, it should be
impossible for even the best cesium clocks to hold time to better than
about 1 part in 9192631770, or 9 microseconds per day. In reality,
the 5071A (a portable cesium beam clock) exhibits an accuracy of
±5×10^−13 and a stability of 2.7×10^−14 over 100,000 s, while cesium
fountain clocks exhibit accuracy and stability in the 10^-16 range.
Are cesium clocks FAKE???
======================================================================
Post by rhertz
I strongly believe about this HOAX, because I have a life with more than
45 years spent working into THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY for military
purposes, besides other works (I was very prolific).
One of the most important applications of signal extraction from noise
IS the processing of radar's received signals UNDER HEAVY JAMMING. I
worked on this too, for many years.
Pound and Rebka are fraudsters with many accomplishes. Pound, years
later, changed his NARRATIVE when he started to speak publicly that he
had proven EM blue/red-shifting.
But, by 1981, NOBODY paid attention on what he said in different
seminars. He was toasted, done, and the scientific community turned
their back on him. The price for being a crook.
======================================================================
Nope. Pound continued to receive honors throughout his career,
including the National Medal of Science in 1990 for his lifetime
contributions to the field of physics. Did you know that Pound might
possibly have shared the 1952 Nobel prize for his work in NMR? Instead,
his collaborator Edward Purcell shared the prize with Felix Block,
while Pound was explicitly cited in the Nobel presentation as an
important collaborator.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1952/ceremony-speech/
======================================================================

As I stated previously, I am not going to argue with you about the
details of the Pound-Rebka experiment.

If you deny the existence of gravitational redshift, you deny the
validity of any theory of gravitation that respects the equivalence
principle, including Newtonian gravitation.

What do you propose as a replacement for Newtonian gravitation?
rhertz
2024-09-27 21:07:10 UTC
Permalink
======================================================================
That is a rather absurd argument. Consider that the linewidth of the
cesium hyperfine resonance ranges from 1 to 10 Hz, depending on the
atomic beam or fountain configuration, interrogation time, and other
details of clock construction. By your argument, it should be
impossible for even the best cesium clocks to hold time to better than
about 1 part in 9192631770, or 9 microseconds per day. In reality,
the 5071A (a portable cesium beam clock) exhibits an accuracy of
±5×10^−13 and a stability of 2.7×10^−14 over 100,000 s, while cesium
fountain clocks exhibit accuracy and stability in the 10^-16 range.
Are cesium clocks FAKE???
======================================================================

Don't forget that 9,192,631,770 Hz IS A CONVENTION, not a constant of
nature. It has intrinsic (and random) noise of about +/- 2.5 Hz, which
traduces into an uncertainty of about 10E-10.

Don't confuse Cs133 frequency shift with the shift of the MASTER TCXO
(5 or 10 Mhz), which is THE HEART of the atomic clock, stabilized much
more through negative feedback. This is the clock used for timing, not
the Cs133, which is used as MASTER STABILIZER.

Read this excellent document about how CS atomic clocks work (2018). I'm
sure it will dissipate many of your doubts:



Features of direct digital synthesis applications for microwave
excitation signal formation in quantum frequency standard on the atoms
of cesium

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Microwave-resonances-in-the-Ramsey-cavity_fig4_329845646

NOTE: PRESS "DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT", IN THE LOWER PART OF THE PAGE.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-09-27 22:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
======================================================================
That is a rather absurd argument. Consider that the linewidth of the
cesium hyperfine resonance ranges from 1 to 10 Hz, depending on the
atomic beam or fountain configuration, interrogation time, and other
details of clock construction. By your argument, it should be
impossible for even the best cesium clocks to hold time to better than
about 1 part in 9192631770, or 9 microseconds per day. In reality,
the 5071A (a portable cesium beam clock) exhibits an accuracy of
±5×10^−13 and a stability of 2.7×10^−14 over 100,000 s, while cesium
fountain clocks exhibit accuracy and stability in the 10^-16 range.
Are cesium clocks FAKE???
======================================================================
Don't forget that 9,192,631,770 Hz IS A CONVENTION, not a constant of
nature. It has intrinsic (and random) noise of about +/- 2.5 Hz, which
traduces into an uncertainty of about 10E-10.
Don't confuse Cs133 frequency shift with the shift of the MASTER TCXO
(5 or 10 Mhz), which is THE HEART of the atomic clock, stabilized much
more through negative feedback. This is the clock used for timing, not
the Cs133, which is used as MASTER STABILIZER.
======================================================================
Yes. And don't forget that it is this long term stabilization of the
crystal oscillator against the NOISY input signal comprising trillions
of cesium atoms each second (the beam would generally be in the 1-10
microampere range) that enables the center of the resonance to be
established to within parts per thousand or better of the line width.

Instead of averaging in the frequency domain using a crystal, Pound
and Rebka averaged in the velocity domain recording accumulated counts.
Why do you doubt the possibilty of doing that?

I repeat. Pound and Rebka validated the Local Position Invariance
(LPI) aspect of the equivalence principle, which if false would
disprove Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity.

Do you really believe that Newtonian gravitation could be FALSE???
======================================================================
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-01 21:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Modern measurements greatly tighten the error bars.
At some level of measurement precision, it is expected that the
equivalence principle must eventually break down. So far it hasn't.
But in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by religious maniacs like you
"improper" clocks keeps measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-09-26 13:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Paul. you are PROJECTING. And as a good cornered relativist, try to
divert the attention with something else, EXCEPT what I questioned.
I put these simple calculations for you TO LEARN, but I sincerely doubt
that you may go the first lines WITHOUT CRYING FOUL, like a little girl.
***************************************************************
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40  ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59  ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with 41
accumulated hours of flight.
You yet again demonstrates your ability to read a text and
misinterpret what you read.

https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf

On the top of page 268:

"Although the assumption of an equatorial circumnavigation at
constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does
simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude
of expected relativistic effects.
For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v
(m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain
for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest"
on the Earth's surface is given by:" see equation (1)

kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns


If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.

Your giant blunder:
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)

How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?
Post by rhertz
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² =  -184  ± 18
No. That formula will never give that result.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

The Kinematic effect for the Eastward trip = -184±18 ns
is given in the introduction to the paper.

This value is obviously the final result when all the flights
in different direction and with different speeds are taken
into consideration.

READ THE PAPER PROPERLY!
Post by rhertz
<snip nonsense>
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-26 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Paul, I quote this SHAMEFUL part of your post. You are becoming a
disgraceful LIAR and DECEIVER, as it correspond to a relativist.

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

kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns

If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.

Your giant blunder:
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)

How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?
****************************************************************
THE CORRECT FORMULA, FROM THE HAFELE PAPER, IS:

kinematic term: (τ - τ₀) = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀

where τ₀ is the USNO ELAPSED TIME after the eastward round trip. This is
a GROSS estimation, which gives

τ₀ = 65.42 hours = 235,512,000,000,000 theoretical nanoseconds elapsed
at USNO clocks!

************************
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns

If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.
************************


You CAN´T (unless you are a fraudster) to calculate a theoretical USNO
elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air), and ESTIMATE a
difference of 245 nsec between USNO and "flying clocks". This represents
a fraction of about 1,000,000,000,000 parts between both clocks, and
calculated for trips around the Equator.

Of course that, if you are a CROOK used to hack and cook, are used to
LIE and DECEIVE, and have a bunch of people that support your SCAM, then
you can produce an HOAX like this one.

Your emphasis in supporting this entire FARCE shows your true colors.
You are not different from these people or others who committed fraud in
widely published "experiments", like Gravity Probe A, Pound-Rebka,
Cassini and so many others.

Shame on you, as you don't have a bit of it.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-09-26 20:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by rhertz
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours,
with 41 accumulated hours of flight.
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀(2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18
τ - τ₀ = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184±18
You yet again demonstrates your ability to read a text and
misinterpret what you read.
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
"Although the assumption of an equatorial circumnavigation at
constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does
simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude
of expected relativistic effects.
For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v
(m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain
for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest"
on the Earth's surface is given by:" see equation (1)
Paul, I quote this SHAMEFUL part of your post. You are becoming
a disgraceful LIAR and DECEIVER, as it correspond to a relativist.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns
If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."
(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)
How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?
kinematic term: (τ - τ₀) = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
But it isn't (τ - τ₀) because it is only the kinematic term.
That's why I wrote τₖ. But Δτₖ would possibly be better.

So: Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀

But thanks for pointing out that my formula was THE CORRECT FORMULA
for an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v.
Post by rhertz
where τ₀ is the USNO ELAPSED TIME after the eastward round trip.
This is a GROSS estimation, which gives
τ₀ = 65.42 hours = 235,512,000,000,000 theoretical nanoseconds
elapsed at USNO clocks!
Thanks again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The USNO clocks have advanced τ₀ = 235,512,000,000,000 ns
during the 65.42 hours trip.

You are sharp today, Richard! :-D
Post by rhertz
You CAN´T (unless you are a fraudster) to calculate a theoretical USNO
elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air), and ESTIMATE a
difference of 245 nsec between USNO and "flying clocks".
This represents a fraction of about 1,000,000,000,000 parts between
both clocks, and calculated for trips around the Equator.
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
but I CAN'T (unless I am a fraudster) calculate a theoretical USNO
elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air).

And I can't put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s = 235.512E+12 ns
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s

into THE CORRECT FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.

This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.

But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
Post by rhertz
Of course that, if you are a CROOK used to hack and cook, are used to
LIE and DECEIVE, and have a bunch of people that support your SCAM,
then you can produce an HOAX like this one.
Are you frustrated about something, Richard?
Do you have a bad toothache?
Post by rhertz
Your emphasis in supporting this entire FARCE shows your true colors.
You are not different from these people or others who committed fraud
in widely published "experiments", like Gravity Probe A, Pound-Rebka,
Cassini and so many others.
Shame on you, as you don't have a bit of it.
Of course we know that all physicists born after 1900 are
members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because
the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

But I am not a physicist, so why am I a fraud?
Is it because I several times have pointed out your errors?
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by rhertz
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18
No. That formula will never give that result.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
The Kinematic effect for the Eastward trip = -184±18 ns
is given in the introduction to the paper.
This value is obviously the final result when all the flights
in different direction and with different speeds are taken
into consideration.
READ THE PAPER PROPERLY!
From whence did you get the stupid idea that the equation
Δτₖ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² for an equatorial circumnavigation
at the constant ground speed v = +170.16 m/s would give
Δτₖ = -184±18 ns ?
--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-27 00:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.

I'll explain, but first I extracted some gems from your post:

*************************************************************
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
but I CAN'T (unless I am a fraudster) calculate a theoretical USNO
elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air).


And I can't put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s = 235.512E+12 ns
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s


into THE CORRECT FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.


This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.


But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
**************************************************************

1) The eastward flight lasted 65.42 hours, of which 42.23 hours were
spent on planes flying at about 9 Km high, on average.

Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE assertion:

- WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think that
a good approximation is:

- Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that USNO
labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward trip.

- So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0 Km,
we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount (either 0°
latitude or the average 34° latitude).

- The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while Earth
rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN (because we
departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL IN SPACE, without
ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein, who slipped eastward,
to finally reach USNO again.

- The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.

- But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ = 65.42h = 235.512E+12 ns.

- That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
that Einstein was right.


See, Paul, WHY YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER OR IMBECILE BEYOND REDEMPTION?

I go for an IMBECILE, A BLIND ONE. But that is just me.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-09-27 11:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.
Let's add a little context first.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
top of page 268:
"For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v (m/s)
and altitude h(m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying
clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's
surface is given by:

Δτ/τ₀ = (τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² (1)

where r and To are the respective times recorded by the flying
and ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/s) its
angular speed; g(m/s²) is the surface value of the acceleration
of gravity; and c(m/sec) is the speed of light.
In Equation 1, the ground speed is positive for eastward and
negative for westward circumnavigations."

Note that the point with this equation (with constant speed at equator)
is "for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

It was obviously not this equation (with constant speed and altitude)
that was used for the calculation of all the flights.


The kinematic term is: Δτₖ
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s
into THE FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.
This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.
But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
1) The eastward flight lasted 65.42 hours, of which 42.23 hours were
spent on planes flying at about 9 Km high, on average.
- WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think that
 - Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that USNO
   labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward trip.
 - So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
   65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0 Km,
   we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount (either 0°
   latitude or the average 34° latitude).
 - The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while Earth
   rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN (because we
   departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL IN SPACE, without
   ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein, who slipped eastward,
   to finally reach USNO again.
 - The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
   got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
   bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.
 - But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
   THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ = 65.42h = 235.512E+12 ns.
 - That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
   in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
   that Einstein was right.
I have no further comment to this gem! :-D
Post by rhertz
See, Paul, WHY YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER OR IMBECILE BEYOND REDEMPTION?
I go for an IMBECILE, A BLIND ONE. But that is just me.
Quite. That's indeed just Richard Hertz.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-27 20:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by rhertz
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.
<snip all the text that you REPEATED from my post>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s
into THE FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.
This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.
But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
<snip only my reply>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
I have no further comment to this gem! :-D
Post by rhertz
See, Paul, WHY YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER OR IMBECILE BEYOND REDEMPTION?
I go for an IMBECILE, A BLIND ONE. But that is just me.
Quite. That's indeed just Richard Hertz.
END OF QUOTING


When cornered, a relativistic idiot like you WILL NEGATE any evidence of
a fraud, as if his life depends on it (or, maybe such threat is real for
an indoctrinated imbecile).

I´LL REPEAT ONE MORE TIME:

YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS THE
ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES
FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY) TO ESTIMATE THE
TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.

WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT IT'S CORRECT TO ESTIMATE SUCH ELAPSED TIME AS THE
REMOTE FLIGHT TIME PLUS TIME SPENT AT AIRPORTS (65.42 HOURS), YOU ARE
BEYOND CRETINISM, BECAUSE OVER THAT RESULT YOU DARE TO ESTIMATE A 200
NSEC DIFFERENCE WITH THE HAFELE'S CLOCKS.

WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT OVER A THEORETICAL VALUE OF 235,512,000,000,000
NSEC ELAPSED AT USNO CLOCKS (VALUE PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS),
THEORETICALLY CAN ESTIMATE A DIFFERENCE OF 200 NSEC, YOU ARE A LIAR, A
DECEIVER AND A FRAUDSTER.

CAPITO?

YOUR REPUTATION AS AN IMBECILE IS WRITTEN ALL OVER THE GOOGLE FORUM FOR
MORE THAN 20 YEARS. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM SUCH HISTORY OF YOUR
ADVENTURES HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW A FRAUDSTER FEEL ABOUT HIMSELF OR HOW
CAN HE LIVE WITH SUCH SHAME, BECAUSE I'M AN HONEST PERSON AND ALWAYS
HAVE BEEN. SOMETHING THAT YOUR PARENTS TEACH, BUT THEY FAILED ON YOU.

NOW, GO AND HIDE IN SHAME FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, UNTIL THIS FADES. IT'S
WHAT YOU'VE DONE ALL THESE YEARS, WHEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR LIES OR YOUR
STUPID COMMENTS.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-09-28 19:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by rhertz
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.
<snip all the text that you REPEATED from my post>
So I will have repeat the text which was NOT repeated
from your post.


https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
top of page 268:
"For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v (m/s)
and altitude h(m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying
clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's
surface is given by:

Δτ/τ₀ = (τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² (1)

where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying
and ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/s) its
angular speed; g(m/s²) is the surface value of the acceleration
of gravity; and c(m/sec) is the speed of light.
In Equation 1, the ground speed is positive for eastward and
negative for westward circumnavigations."

Note that the point with this equation (with constant speed at equator)
is "for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

It was obviously not this equation (with constant speed and altitude)
that was used for the calculation of the prediction for all the flights.

-----

If an aeroplane is flying once around the Earth along equator
with a constant ground speed and altitude, and the duration of
the trip is 65.42 hours as measured by UTC clocks which are
stationary on the ground at the geoid, then the kinematic term
Post by rhertz
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s
into THE FORMULA  Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.
This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.
But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
It is obviously idiotic to say that to put numbers
into this theoretical flight is fraudulent.

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

Your real blunder is to insist that that H&K used equation (1)
to calculate the predictions for the trips. They did not.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
I quote from page 271:
"Commercial around-the-world flights do not, of course,
maintain constant altitude, latitude, or ground speed.
In this case, it is necessary to perform a numerical integration
of the relativistic equations. The necessary calculation is given by

Δτ = ∫ [gh(τ)/c² - (2RΩ⋅cosλ(τ)⋅cosθ(τ)⋅v(τ) + v²(τ))/2c²]dτ (2)

where, for each interval of the summation, λ is the latitude, θ is
the azimuth or bearing of the plane's velocity relative to east,
and the rest of the symbols have the same meaning as for Equation (1)
(v is the unsigned magnitude of the ground speed in Equation 2;
the azimuth θ accounts for the direction).
"

The eastward trip consisted of 14 flights, and equation (2)
was used for all the flights. When the the clocks were stationary
on the ground Δτ didn't change.
Post by rhertz
YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS THE
ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES
FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY) TO ESTIMATE THE
TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
Yes, you can ESTIMATE WHAT IS THE TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS
IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES FAR AWAY.
I keep my wristwatch to within 1 second from UTC +2h, so I can at
any time estimate the time at the USNO clocks within 1 second.

Remember that all clocks showing UTC+n hours are synchronous
in the ECI-frame, even if the precision will vary.
Post by rhertz
WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT IT'S CORRECT TO ESTIMATE SUCH ELAPSED TIME AS THE
REMOTE FLIGHT TIME PLUS TIME SPENT AT AIRPORTS (65.42 HOURS), YOU ARE
BEYOND CRETINISM, BECAUSE OVER THAT RESULT YOU DARE TO ESTIMATE A 200
NSEC DIFFERENCE WITH THE HAFELE'S CLOCKS.
For estimating the _prediction_ H&K used equation (2) for each flight.
The τ in the equation is the time shown by 'ordinary' clocks on
airport and in planes. When the clocks were stationary on the ground
Δτ didn't change and nothing had to be done.

The point is that the measurement of the duration of each flight
isn't critical, and does not have to be done by an atomic clock.
There are many other parameters (speed,heights etc.) which
are less well known than the time.

In our theoretical flight above, 1 second error in τ₀ would
only give 1 ps error in Δτₖ. So 1 second precision in τ₀
would give Δτₖ = -245.323 ± 0.001 ns

But when H&K _measured_ Δτ the trips were timed with the clocks
at USNO. The start of the trip was when the 4 clocks for the last
time were compared to the USNO clocks before the trip,
the end of the trip was when the 4 clocks for the first time
were compared to the USNO clocks after the trip.
The Δτ was then the difference between the corrected time of
the four clocks and the USNO clock.
Post by rhertz
WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT OVER A THEORETICAL VALUE OF 235,512,000,000,000
NSEC ELAPSED AT USNO CLOCKS (VALUE PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS),
THEORETICALLY CAN ESTIMATE A DIFFERENCE OF 200 NSEC, YOU ARE A LIAR, A
DECEIVER AND A FRAUDSTER.
The _theoretical_ trip with constant speed along equator
lasts 65.42 hours per definition, and Δτₖ = -245.323 ns
Post by rhertz
CAPITO?
YOUR REPUTATION AS AN IMBECILE IS WRITTEN ALL OVER THE GOOGLE FORUM FOR
MORE THAN 20 YEARS. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM SUCH HISTORY OF YOUR
ADVENTURES HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW A FRAUDSTER FEEL ABOUT HIMSELF OR HOW
CAN HE LIVE WITH SUCH SHAME, BECAUSE I'M AN HONEST PERSON AND ALWAYS
HAVE BEEN. SOMETHING THAT YOUR PARENTS TEACH, BUT THEY FAILED ON YOU.
:-D

Richard, do you remember this blunder of yours?
Post by rhertz
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Earth's ground) by a factor: Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.
------------
Or this?
Post by rhertz
As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision

------------------
Or this?
Post by rhertz
WHY THE ASSERTION ABOUT RELATIVITY BEING A PSEUDOSCIENCE? THE FOLLOWING
1) As the distance between both reference frames is increasing
constantly, the communication of data between both frames is IMPOSSIBLE
to exist while exchanging information about time and position of both
frames, even using light as a carrier of data. Both origins will be
always out of sync, even when ghost observers, located at both origins,
are trying to communicate between them.
----------------------
Or this?
Post by rhertz
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Richard responded.
Post by rhertz
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read
the Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements
-----------------
Or this?
Post by rhertz
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
NOW, GO AND HIDE IN SHAME FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, UNTIL THIS FADES. IT'S
WHAT YOU'VE DONE ALL THESE YEARS, WHEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR LIES OR YOUR
STUPID COMMENTS.
Your well formulated arguments are as lethal as always!
Well done, Richard.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-28 22:58:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:49:11 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip all repeated garbage, except the most stinky)
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Your real blunder is to insist that that H&K used equation (1)
to calculate the predictions for the trips. They did not.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
"Commercial around-the-world flights do not, of course,
maintain constant altitude, latitude, or ground speed.
In this case, it is necessary to perform a numerical integration
of the relativistic equations. The necessary calculation is given by
Δτ = ∫ [gh(τ)/c² - (2RΩ⋅cosλ(τ)⋅cosΞ(τ)⋅v(τ) + v²(τ))/2c²]dτ (2)
where, for each interval of the summation, λ is the latitude, Ξ is
the azimuth or bearing of the plane's velocity relative to east,
and the rest of the symbols have the same meaning as for Equation (1)
(v is the unsigned magnitude of the ground speed in Equation 2;
the azimuth Ξ accounts for the direction).
"
The eastward trip consisted of 14 flights, and equation (2)
was used for all the flights. When the the clocks were stationary
on the ground Δτ didn't change.
<end snipping>

When I affirm that you are a fraudster and also an imbecile, I mean it.

This is the original Hafele formula

τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-(2RΩv + v²) /2c²] τ₀ (1)

See the attached diagram (again), with the 13 segments of eastward
flight. SEE ALSO HAFELE'S COOKING:

τ₀ = 2πR/|v|, which SHOULD BE τ₀ = 2πRcosλ/|v|


Hafele used this FALSE VALUE for τ₀ in Equation 1, giving


Δτ = τ - τ₀ = ∑ [gh(τ₀)/c²-(2RΩv(τ₀) cosλ(τ)⋅cosΞ(τ)+ v(τ₀)²) /2c²] Δτ₀


DO YOU GET IT, FRAUDSTER? THE VARIABLE IS τ₀, NOR τ. THE USNO τ₀.

He also WROTE that the flight was divided INTO 120 SEGMENTS! Hence, the
summation symbol ∑.

And YOU, championing the cretinism contest, ACCUSE ME OF NOT READING?

GTFO, LIAR+DECEIVER+FRAUDSTER+IMBECILE.

You try to show one FALSE EQUATION, using the wrong variable. IDIOT!!


The Hafele-Keating experiment was A GIANT HOAX, dedicated to gullible
assholes like you, who collect old papers like others collect stamps.
Not only that, you use your website as a support for these scams, like a
fanatic religious use its site for displaying PROPAGANDA of his cult.

Lame person.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-09-27 13:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Paul, more beating on you. I feel bad.
1) Check AGAIN the Hafele's chart. from 1971. Use the red line for h=0.
2) Check out this comparison: Mudrak 2017 (Galileo) vs. Hafele 1971.
Feel ashamed or stupid. These are your only choices, old man.
************************************************************
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c²r - (-GMe/c²a (1 + J₂/2)) - (vˢᵃᵗ)²/2c² + (aΩₑ)²/2c²
J₂/2 = 0.0005413134 (DISCARDED FOR BEING << 1)
But to find Δf/f₀ with a precision 1E-14 you can't
ignore the quadrupole moment.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (aΩₑ)²]
If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r (i.e. 10 Km),
then
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Correcting typo:
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?
You don't have to explain, I can guess what your blunder is:

You think the kinematic terms are different in the two equations.
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
I'll cease to post on this thread, because I'm bored as hell with you.
I can understand why you are frustrated by being proven wrong again and
again.

And again:

See equation (12)in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

The kinematic term can be written: +(v₁² - v₂²)/2c²
where v₁ is the speed in the ECI frame of the clock on the ground.
and v₂ is the speed in the ECI frame of the moving object.

In Mudrak's case v₁ = rΩₑ and v₂ = vˢᵃᵗ, so obviously:

+(v₁² - v₂²)/2c² = - [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (rΩₑ)²]/2c²

In Hafele's case it is not so obvious because v is the ground speed.
v is positive for the eastward trip and negative for the westward trip.

v₁ = RΩ and v₂ = RΩ + v

v₁²-v₂² = (RΩ)² - (RΩ + v)² = (RΩ)² -((RΩ)² + 2RΩv + v²) = -(2RΩv + v²)

+(v₁² - v₂²)/2c² = - (2RΩv + v²)/2c²

So the two equations are equal.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-09-25 19:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.
If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
x' = γ(x - vt)
t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
x = γ(x' + vt')
γ = √(1 − v²/c²)
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.
You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.
You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).
You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.
Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.
Quite. Time dilation between two inertial human biological entities.

(Note that "inertial" means that the proper acceleration is zero.
It does NOT mean "not moving".)
Post by rhertz
CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E',
which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE
SLOWLY THAN HIM.
A bit awkward put, but OK. (REMOTE TIME?)

E is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.
Post by rhertz
CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I
PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!
OK. E' is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.

You have now told what you have heard about mutual time dilation
between E and E' while they both are inertial.

Here you can see how this is calculated with the LT:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Post by rhertz
The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both
humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.
Quite.
But both are ageing equally fast, so where is the paradox?


Are you giving up?

The issue is the "twin paradox".

So far you haven't addressed it!

Have you realised that the E and E' can't come back together if
they both are inertial?


May I remind you:

| Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
|> infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
|> bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
|>
|> But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
|> that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
|> So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
|> aged.

You claimed that the result of the "STUPID FORMULA" Lorentz transform
applied on the "twin paradox" was that each traveller will PERCEIVE that
the other has aged less than himself. Or was it opposite?
Will each traveller PERCEIVE that the other has aged more than himself?

I am looking forward to see how you will bring E and E' back together.

You will have to use the "STUPID FORMULA" to prove
that the "STUPID FORMULA" predicts what you claim it predicts.


Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? 😂
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-09-25 20:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Quoting Paul being stupid, one more time. He'll never desist or give up,
because his fossilized brain CAN'T UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!!

********************************************************************
You claimed that the result of the "STUPID FORMULA" Lorentz transform
applied on the "twin paradox" was that each traveller will PERCEIVE that
the other has aged less than himself. Or was it opposite?
Will each traveller PERCEIVE that the other has aged more than himself?

I am looking forward to see how you will bring E and E' back together.

You will have to use the "STUPID FORMULA" to prove
that the "STUPID FORMULA" predicts what you claim it predicts.

Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? 😂

--
Paul
********************************************************************

Two things:


1) About the paradox that emerges from A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Nor I,
neither you or anyone else need to use the STUPID LORENTZ FORMULAE in
order to "justify the paradox. Even LESS to imagine a method to: slowly
stop (you don't want any humanoid dead, I guess); turn back the
imaginary vehicle and slowly accelerate towards either origin of E or
E', to finally slowly stop, so the humanoids can meet face to face.


Use LOGICAL THINKING, for God's sake!!


The basis for REASONING are in the cornerstone of SR:

- ANY FRAME CAN BE CHOSEN TO BE AT RELATIVE REST, AND THEY CAN BE
SWITCHED AT WILL.

- SR asserts that the RELATIVELY MOVING FRAME,at a differential speed v,
is PERCEIVED (through the stupid Lorentz mathematics) as having TIME
DILATION with respect with the frame at relative rest frame (chosen
freely).

If you CAN'T SEE THE PARADOX in the TWO CONTEXTS described above (that
each humanoid PERCEIVE the other as aging slowly), is because you're
BRAIN DEAD, STUPID BEYOND REPAIR.

And if you need such stupid formulae to calculate HOW MUCH is the
PERCEIVED AGE DIFFERENCE, is because you like to play with the stupid
Lorentz formulae.

Give up, old man, and go out to buy a Nintendo 1984 console to play.
You'll have more satisfactions and intellectual realizations than with
this OLD GAME of relativity that CONSUMED HALF OF YOUR LIFE.



And about the second thing:

2) You ignored the second post ABOUT THE H&k FRAUD!

There you have simple mathematics to be applied (if your head still
works), in order to VERIFY HOW THIS CRETIN (HAFELE) wrote EXACTLY how he
was going to MOCK YOU, to TAKE YOU AS A GULLIBLE IMBECILE, and you'd be
happy!

I repeat FUNDAMENTALS that show the FARCE that the paper and the
experiment were:

2a) For his theoretical calculations of SR and GR parts, Hafele IMAGINED
(and nobody disputed that), that HE COULD USE A WRONG/STUPID FORMULA to
determine WHAT WAS THE THEORETICAL VALUE OF THE TIME AT THE CLOCKS IN
THE WASHINGTON USNO.

2b) He used THE GROUND SPEED OF EARTH as the speed by which he
calculated THE FLIGHT TIME, making it equivalent to a "standing still"
instance with the flying clocks resting on the ground!

2c) The graphic published in 1971, which I attached above, was the naive
attempt to fool people, as he COULDN'T then to publish NUMERIC DATA for
each segment.

2d) Only in 1972 he published the attached document with COOKED DATA,
which is HIGHLY INCONSISTENT, no matter which is the angle of approach
for you or ANYBODY ELSE used to analyze the "experiment".

Even with GROSS CALCULATIONS, it's possible to demonstrate that the
theoretical calculations (ALL OF THEM) have errors greater than 60%,
which renders the experiment USELESS. A farce, an HOAX.

And you BOUGHT ALL OF IT, because it was published and you're a gullible
stupid, posing as an amateur relativistic physicist, who knows
everything.


Do you want to discuss another hoax, like the Pound-Rebka 1960 scam?


Paul, you are not a valid competitor in terms of intellectual power.
Keep working at the garden or whatever.
Richard Hachel
2024-09-25 16:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
This is not a pseudo-science, it is an absolutely correct science.
It is simply extremely poorly explained by relativistic physicists and
mathematicians, who do not understand anything about it at all and only
pose equations that are half true and half false.

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) is true.

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) is false.

The contraction of distances is totally inappropriate.
They think (and I never understood how they can make such a mistake as the
bad contraction of distances observed by a neutral observer of Stella's
frame of reference, that is to say at an equal distance from the elements
of the entire inertial universe of Terrence) that it is equal to
D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²) .
This is not the contraction observed by Stella, and the 12 ly do not
transform into 7.2 ly FOR HER.
We must use the equation D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
We then see that if µ is different from 0 the result is mind-blowing.
However, Stella does not move transversely (or rather the earth
transversely in relation to her), but longitudinally.
We have cosµ=1 on the way out and cosµ=-1 on the way back.
If we forget this simple and logical geometry, everything enters into
mathematical horror, and no one understands anything anymore.
It even becomes impossible to explain how Stella can see the earth moving
away at 0.4444c on the way out, then come back to it at 4c on the way
back, in a journey that will last twice 9 years of her own time.

This is not a pseudo-science, it is an absolutely correct science.
It is simply extremely poorly explained by relativistic physicists and
mathematicians, who do not understand anything about it at all and only
pose equations that are half true and half false.

All sprinkled with an immense sense of arrogance.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-09-25 16:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.
Paul, don't you think this joke (Minkowski space-time) has gone on long
enough?

R.H.
bertietaylor
2024-09-26 03:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Yes yes yes with wohls on and lots of cheer.

Hurrah!

May such sense dawn on all as the kindly morning rays of the Sun.
J. J. Lodder
2024-09-30 21:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every
experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.
For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.

Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.

Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.

So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,

Jan
rhertz
2024-09-30 23:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every
experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.

Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.


EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.

1) Information networks are synchronised.

Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.

2) satnav just works.

Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.

3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.

This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.

Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


5) accelerators accelerate.

?????????

6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way


7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.


NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-10-01 11:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/
How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Well said, Richard.

Considering that all physicists born after 1900 are members of
a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking
and peer complicity, it is clear that NEWTON RULES.

Physics hasn't evolved at all for since 1900.

You can OBVIOUSLY design particle accelerators and Satellite navigation
systems and synchronise TAI-clocks with Newtonian mechanics only.

Right, Richard?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-01 21:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/
How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Well said, Richard.
Considering that all physicists born after 1900 are members of
a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking
and peer complicity, it is clear that NEWTON RULES.
Physics hasn't evolved at all for since 1900.
You can OBVIOUSLY design particle accelerators and Satellite navigation
systems and synchronise TAI-clocks with Newtonian mechanics only.
Doesn't your moronic Shit forbid to
synchronize moving relatively clocks,
poor halfbrain?
Richard Hachel
2024-10-01 22:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Doesn't your moronic Shit forbid to
synchronize moving relatively clocks,
The great and only problem with the theory of relativity is that men
realized that there was a problem of relativity of time, but they never
clearly understood why.

They then came across Minkowski, who completely deviated Poincaré's
thinking, and humanity arrived at the understanding of the second degree
effect that is the Lorentz factor.

Without going, strangely enough, through the main cause, the first degree.

Then progressing in intellectual horror, they confused the notion of
relativity of clocks with relativity of chronotropy, taking the two
effects for the same thing.

The last horror came when Dr. Hachel tried to straighten the ship and
reformulate a coherent theory without paradox (SR is full of them so I
wonder what it must be like in RG). We should have bowed down and said,
but who is this guy who speaks so well and whose equations are great?

Noooooot at all.

Arrogance has taken over.

R.H.
J. J. Lodder
2024-10-05 08:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every
experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
Time division multiplexing requires accurate synchronisation.
Post by rhertz
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
OK, in denial.
Post by rhertz
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
The BIPM is tasked with maintaining TAI/UTC.
All timekeeping depends on it.
Relativistic correction have been taken into account in establishing it
for the past 50 years.
Post by rhertz
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
It can't run without the underlying network synchronisation.
Post by rhertz
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
Go visit CERN. Ask them why their ring needs to be 30 kilometer wide.
Post by rhertz
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
The atomic clock in GAIA needs to be kept track of
to know where it is pointing.
Post by rhertz
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/How_does_Gaia_study
_the_Milky_Way

Not a word there about -how- GAIA does this measuring to that accuracy.
Look it up.
Post by rhertz
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
In denial again. Look up the Cassini mission for example,
or the Parker solar probe.
You really need all that accuracy to get those successive
planetary swings (aka gravity assists) just right.
(hint: each swing greatly amplifies any initial error)
Post by rhertz
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Not merely denial, this is complete ignorance.
Look up TCB for example. (Temps Coordonnée Barycentrique)
The relativistic corrections to it amount to half a second/year,
in range of a very good quartz wrist watch,

Jan

Loading...