Discussion:
No evidence
Add Reply
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-13 14:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ptolemeian epicycles managed the predictions
quite well (better than circular orbits of
Copernicus). Does it mean that the planet
movements were somehow the evidence for
geocentrism?
Sorry, poor halfbrains.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-13 17:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Perhaps that goes for the relativistic formula for the effects of
gravity on atomic clocks. What does electromagnetism have to do with the
decay rate of atomic clocks?
gharnagel
2024-09-13 19:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Perhaps that goes for the relativistic formula for the effects
of gravity on atomic clocks. What does electromagnetism have
to do with the decay rate of atomic clocks?
Caesium-133 is stable: it doesn't undergo radioactive decay.

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

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t
read.” – Mark Twain
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-14 18:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Gary: Thank you.
Mikko
2024-09-14 09:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Perhaps that goes for the relativistic formula for the effects of
gravity on atomic clocks.
The relativistic formula for the effects of gravity on atomic clocks
has been verified for weak fields.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
What does electromagnetism have to do with the
decay rate of atomic clocks?
The frequency of atomic clocks is not a decay rate. Atomic clocks
are shielded against effects of electormagnetism. Similar shielding
against gravity is not possible.
--
Mikko
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-14 22:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: How is the formula for determining the gravitational effect on
atomic clocks GR and not just gravity?
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 00:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: It's in this article; "Relativistic Corrections in the European
GNSS Galileo"
Mikko
2024-09-15 09:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How is the formula for determining the gravitational effect on
atomic clocks GR and not just gravity?
Depends on which formula you want to use. One of the symbols in the
formula refer to time as measured by a clock and one to coordinate
time. The dependency on the altitude of the ratio of these two times
is the effect on clocks.
--
Mikko
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-15 10:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How is the formula for determining the gravitational effect on
atomic clocks GR and not just gravity?
Depends on which formula you want to use. One of the symbols in the
formula refer to time as measured by a clock and one to coordinate
time. The dependency on the altitude of the ratio of these two times
is the effect on clocks.
Your pathetic lies of 2 different times
allegedly present in your moronic Shit
won't save it at all.

So, 2 times, eh? Which one of them
should we use to determine simultaneity?
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 21:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: Then the gravitational effect is time contraction? Rational
scientists understand it is instrumental error.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-14 23:06:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: How can we know the different rates of atomic clocks in space are
due to gravity when there are numerous differences in that environment
from Earth?
gharnagel
2024-09-15 00:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How can we know the different rates of atomic clocks in space are
due to gravity when there are numerous differences in that environment
from Earth?
(1) The satellite clocks are isolated from environmental conditions with
the exception of relative velocity and gravitational field.

(2)
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

NIST scientists performed the new "time dilation" experiments by
comparing operations of a pair of the world's best experimental
atomic clocks. The nearly identical clocks are each based on the
"ticking" of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom)
as it vibrates between two energy levels over a million billion
times per second.

In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks
by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter
(about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher
clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock,
exactly as predicted.

The second set of experiments examined the effects of altering
the physical motion of the ion in one clock. (The ions are almost
completely motionless during normal clock operations.) NIST
scientists tweaked the one ion so that it gyrated back and forth
at speeds equivalent to several meters per second. That clock
ticked at a slightly slower rate than the second clock, as
predicted by relativity.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-15 05:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How can we know the different rates of atomic clocks in space are
due to gravity when there are numerous differences in that environment
from Earth?
(1) The satellite clocks are isolated from environmental conditions with
the exception of relative velocity and gravitational field.
(2)
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-
clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
NIST scientists performed the new "time dilation" experiments by
There is no time dilation in the real world, anyone
can check GPS, time (as defined by your idiot guru
himself) is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable
error.
Post by gharnagel
comparing operations of a pair of the world's best experimental
atomic clocks.
Anyone can check GPS, the best of physicists means
unusable for serious measurements crap.
gharnagel
2024-09-16 02:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by gharnagel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How can we know the different rates of atomic clocks in space
are
Post by gharnagel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
due to gravity when there are numerous differences in that
environment
Post by gharnagel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
from Earth?
(1) The satellite clocks are isolated from environmental conditions
with
Post by gharnagel
the exception of relative velocity and gravitational field.
(2)
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-
Post by gharnagel
clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
NIST scientists performed the new "time dilation" experiments by
There is no time dilation in the real world,
confirmation bias: only seeking information to validate what is already
believed.

“Two-thirds of what we see is behind our eyes.” --Chinese proverb
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
anyone can check GPS,
Not unless they can jump 20000 km high and breathe vacuum :-)
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean, with
the precision of an acceptable error.
Denial of reality is a common mental illness.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by gharnagel
comparing operations of a pair of the world's best experimental
atomic clocks.
Anyone can check GPS,
Not unless they can jump 20000 km high and breathe vacuum :-))

But they can check the results of aluminum atomic clocks right
here on earth, if they're not afraid of having their delusional
protection bubble burst.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
the best of physicists means unusable for serious measurements
What kind of measurements has a self-proclaimed "information
engineer" made? as opposed to REAL engineers and scientists:

"We have constructed an optical clock with a fractional frequency
inaccuracy of 8.6e-18" -- https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
crap.
Got coprophilia?
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 19:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Gary: Given that they are isolated, how would relative velocity cause
them to run slower? (It doesn't cause time itself to dilate. That is
pure nonsense.)
gharnagel
2024-09-16 02:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Gary: Given that they are isolated, how would relative velocity
cause them to run slower? (It doesn't cause time itself to dilate.
That is pure nonsense.)
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower. Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.

Relativity predicts that measuring such a clock at different
gravitational potentials or in relative motion will get different
results from measuring them when next to the clock. This is a
fact, valid information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7

https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238

"we measure a linear frequency gradient consistent with the
gravitational redshift within a single millimetre-scale sample
of ultracold strontium. Our result is enabled by improving the
fractional frequency measurement uncertainty by more than a
factor of 10, now reaching 7.6 × 10−21."
Ross Finlayson
2024-09-16 02:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Gary: Given that they are isolated, how would relative velocity
cause them to run slower? (It doesn't cause time itself to dilate.
That is pure nonsense.)
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower. Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.
Relativity predicts that measuring such a clock at different
gravitational potentials or in relative motion will get different
results from measuring them when next to the clock. This is a
fact, valid information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238
"we measure a linear frequency gradient consistent with the
gravitational redshift within a single millimetre-scale sample
of ultracold strontium. Our result is enabled by improving the
fractional frequency measurement uncertainty by more than a
factor of 10, now reaching 7.6 × 10−21."
It could be space-contraction in the rotational instead
of length-contraction and time-dilation separately,
still making for that if you have an array of
atomic clocks in a lattice, it can detect the
hand-waving about it, without accelerating it.

I.e. it makes a "gravitational wave detector"
of a sort. Sort of like a "bullshit-and-lies
detector", except it's just a mute scientific
apparatus, which generally as a class comprise
bullshit-and-lies detectors, yet aren't quite
up to the task of the huge amount of bullshit-
and-lies which accompanies many human activities.


The Hafaele-Keating experiment flew a very particular
track, Pound-Rebka stepped up to a laser vis-a-vis
power transmission, and, Michelson-Morley is yet
that "SR is local", so, that the equivalence
principle falls away only sort of extra-terrestrially.

I.e., that's one way to look at it, where of course
any kind of putative _new_ explanation needs to of
course satisfy every single aspect of _old_ explanation,
or it's just a putative theory of an effect, subject to
the configuration and energy of experiment, not necessarily
as with regards to "the law(s)", of physics.


There's Sagnac in here, the Coriolis, Cerenkov,
Compton, Coulomb, Hall ("fractional" Hall),
Birkhoff, Magnus heft, Casimir, effects, lots of these
things that have approximations usually in accords
with the stock premier theories of the day,
also asymptotes.


The JWST space-telescope has thoroughly paint-canned
the fine-tuned inflationary cosmology and so on,
you also have to keep in mind that other stuff
was built on that.

Of course, scientists would agree that all the
experiments of all time all are according to
a "the physics", given the laws being same.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-16 05:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower.  Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.
Anyone can check GPS, and you stated many times
yourself, poor trash: no, they are not.

At least - that's how things are in the reality;
of course, your delusional gedankenwelt is
different.

Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
gharnagel
2024-09-16 11:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower.  Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.
[Lies and nonsense deleted]
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
More lies, insults and slanders left in to show the kind of
person Wozniak is.

"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977),
which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit,
there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real."

(Unfortunately, Wozniak refuses to accept reality, so he still
doubts)

"A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock
system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in
its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer
could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate
necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for
about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the
synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was
+442.5 parts in 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left
uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about
38,000 nanoseconds per day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

So Wozniak has been in denial of reality for 47 years. That's
a LONG time to be a mental case :-(
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-16 12:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by gharnagel
It certainly is nonsense that velocity causes a clock to run
slower.  Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of velocity
or gravitational potential.
[Lies and nonsense deleted]
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
More lies, insults and slanders left in to show the kind of
person Wozniak is.
More lies, insults and slanders left in to show
the kind of person Harnagel is.
Do you want a quoting where you - in person - wrote
about DIFFERENT clock rates in GPS? Allegedly
predicted by your beloved Shit? And "confirming"
it?
So, are different clock rates really confirming that
"Clocks run at their normal rate regardless of..."?

Lies have short legs, poor trash.
Mikko
2024-09-15 10:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: How can we know the different rates of atomic clocks in space are
due to gravity when there are numerous differences in that environment
from Earth?
For the purpose of those clocks it does not really matter. What matters
is that we know how much clock rates need be corrected. Assuming the
difference is a consequence of gravitation as modelled by GR permits
the prediction of the clock rates as accurately as is needed.
--
Mikko
Maciej Wozniak
2024-09-15 11:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
W dniu 15.09.2024 o 12:23, Mikko pisze:



Assuming the
Post by Mikko
difference is a consequence of gravitation as modelled by GR permits
the prediction of the clock rates as accurately as is needed.
A lie, as expected from a piece of relativistic shit.
According to your absurd religion there is no need
for any clock rates correction and they're strictly
forbidden.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 19:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: What does the gravitational effect have to do with relativity?
The formula is about gravitational potential.
Mikko
2024-09-17 05:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: What does the gravitational effect have to do with relativity?
The formula is about gravitational potential.
Special Relativity says that there is no gravitation. General Relativity
is a theory about gravitation and geometry.
--
Mikko
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-17 18:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: It's not necessary for an adjustment for the effects of gravity.
Newtonian is fine.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 21:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: Then relativity has two types of time contraction. One due to
gravity and the other due to relative motion as in the H&K they have
time dilate in one direction and contract in the other.
Mikko
2024-09-17 06:00:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then relativity has two types of time contraction. One due to
gravity and the other due to relative motion as in the H&K they have
time dilate in one direction and contract in the other.
Both theories have time dilation and contraction for moving clocks,
depending on how clocks are synchronized and compared. General
Relativity has in addition effects from gravity.
--
Mikko
Richard Hachel
2024-09-17 15:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mikko
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: Then relativity has two types of time contraction. One due to
gravity and the other due to relative motion as in the H&K they have
time dilate in one direction and contract in the other.
Both theories have time dilation and contraction for moving clocks,
depending on how clocks are synchronized and compared. General
Relativity has in addition effects from gravity.
I do not share this point of view.
It is already said, wrongly in my opinion, that we must separate the
notion of internal chornotropy of watches from the longitudinal Doppler
effect.
For me, this is already excessive.
And then we say: "Let's add general relativity effects due to the presence
of masses".
On this ground, I have even more difficulty following the ramblings of
scientists.
I am not saying that there are no effects, nor that the effects are not
measurable.
I am simply wondering if all this, from A to Z, is not just simple
relativistic effects that could be considered pure native SR.

R.H.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-15 21:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: A pendulum clock must be adjusted to different lengths to keep
the same time to varying latitudes because of the difference in gravity.
That has nothing to do with relativity, so why would it be relativity
with the atomic clocks?
The Starmaker
2024-09-16 03:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: A pendulum clock must be adjusted to different lengths to keep
the same time to varying latitudes because of the difference in gravity.
That has nothing to do with relativity, so why would it be relativity
with the atomic clocks?
The *fact* is...
what no one here wants to admit ..
is that,
it was a CucKoo-Clock
where Albert Einstein
produced Relativity from.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2024-09-16 03:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: A pendulum clock must be adjusted to different lengths to keep
the same time to varying latitudes because of the difference in gravity.
That has nothing to do with relativity, so why would it be relativity
with the atomic clocks?
The *fact* is...
what no one here wants to admit ..
is that,
it was a CucKoo-Clock
where Albert Einstein
produced Relativity from.
I forgot to mentioned...a CucKoo-Clock is in fact A pendulum clock.


(but yous people have to probably have to look that up....)

yous people are all into 'look-up science' ...cause info doesn't exist
in your head.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
gharnagel
2024-09-16 03:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: A pendulum clock must be adjusted to different lengths to
keep
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
the same time to varying latitudes because of the difference in
gravity.
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
That has nothing to do with relativity, so why would it be
relativity
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
with the atomic clocks?
The *fact* is...
what no one here wants to admit ..
is that,
it was a CucKoo-Clock
where Albert Einstein
produced Relativity from.
I forgot to mentioned...a CucKoo-Clock is in fact A pendulum clock.
(but yous people have to probably have to look that up....)
yous people are all into 'look-up science' ...cause info doesn't exist
in your head.
It was dere, but it leaked out :-(

I KNOW that it's a pendulum clock, good grief! I usta bullseye kookoo
boids wit' my B-B gun.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-16 18:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Starmaker: I'll have to look that up!
We don't need relativity to calculate the adjustment in the lengths of
pendulums or atomic clocks in space. An adjustment for gravity does not
necessarily employ relativity. The equation doesn't seem to use
relativity. It's just about gravitational potential. Where is relativity
in the formula?
Mikko
2024-09-17 06:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: A pendulum clock must be adjusted to different lengths to keep
the same time to varying latitudes because of the difference in gravity.
That has nothing to do with relativity, so why would it be relativity
with the atomic clocks?
Basically because God created the world that way. It probably is too
late to discuss that with God even if you think another way would be
better.
--
Mikko
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-09-17 18:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mikko: We can adjust it for gravity without using relativity just fine.
What about the formula is relativity? It's just an adjustment for
gravity.

Loading...