On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:51:56 PM UTC-3, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>>> Lou wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > >>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > >>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > >>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > >>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > >>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > >>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > >>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> > >>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> > >>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> > >>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> > >>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> > >>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> > >>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> > >>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> > >>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> > >>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> > >>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> > >>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> > >>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> > >>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> > >>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms..
> > >>>> [snip bollocks]
> > >>>>
> > >>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> > >>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> > >>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> > >> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
> > >> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
> > >> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
> > >
> > > You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
> > > in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
> > > is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
> > > explain force or potential.
> > I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
> > classical physics.
> >
> > Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
> > acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
> > the same.
> >
> > The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
> > effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
> Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.
> Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
> the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes....
> does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena
> called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects
> changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
> > >>> This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
> > >>> was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
> >
> > >> And varying with force, not potential.
> >
> > >>> As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
> > >>> again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
> > >>> at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
> > >>> the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
> >
> > >> Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
> > >
> > > Gravitational potential you mean?
> > Yes. Specifically, GM/r, which is NOT the acceleration (GM/r²). As I
> > suspected, you didn't understand the difference. Perhaps you do now.
> > Perhaps not.
> > > You are desperate indeed if
> > > you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein
> > > dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
> > Where did I *ever* claim nobody knew of gravitational potential before
> > Einstein?
> > >>> Especially considering it and it’s progeny
> > >>> QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
> >
> > >> Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
> > >> atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
> > >>>
> > >
> > > Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,
> > As I said, notoriously complicated for all but the simplest atoms. H is
> > the simplest atom.
> > > all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
> > > by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
> > Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
> > etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
> Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
> odd way to pretend it does.
> > >>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> > >>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
> >
> > >> And why is that relevant?
> > >
> > > Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
> > > like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
> > > frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
> > For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
> > Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
> Prove this fatuous claim. You can’t. Because resonance does adequately model
> all your so called GR effects. There is no evidence to the contrary.
> > > No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
> > Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
> > massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
> > of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
> Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so called
> relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.
> Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
> natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.
> You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empirical
> observations on resonating systems.

I like and support your concepts about resonance at the quantum level, for physics under dimensions of 10E-10 m.

It makes a lot of COMMON SENSE, much more than the INCOMPLETE quantum mechanics theory, now 98 years old.

Consider that prior to Heisenberg matrix mechanics for H atom (and He), from 1917 to 1925 (inclusive), major theoretical
physicists were involved in the Bohr-modified planetary model: Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld, etc.

Lengthy papers and books were written on this matter, in particular the 1925 book from Max Born, before he threw away
overnight and endorsed his pupil's work (Heisenberg). Sommerfeld was extremely active writing over this, and Einstein was
DELIGHTED with the use of classic physics in the quantum world. These years of working, introducing relativistic concepts
in elliptic orbits, generated many concepts used in the future quantum mechanics like SPIN (1922, Stern–Gerlach experiment),
discrete SPIN (to avoid FTL rotation of electrons), EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE (Pauli, January 1925), orbital names s, p, d, and f, etc.

On 9/25/2023 2:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> absolute time exists.
>>
>> Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute
>> time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
>>> 192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.
>> Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.
>
> Stupid Mike, are you disagreeing that "192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.??????

Of course, Stupid Ken. I will also disagree that "192,631,774.1 cycles
on the GPS clock contains the same number of invisible pink polkadot
flying elephants as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock." Because
absolute time is just as real as invisible pink polkadot flying
elephants. That is, not real at all.
>
>> Assertions are not e[vidence.]

Why haven't you *ever* learned this? After all, you were the one always
stating that.

On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
>>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
>>>>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>>>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>>>>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
>>>>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
>>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>>>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>>>>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
>>>>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
>>>>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
>>>>>> [snip bollocks]
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
>>>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
>>>>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
>>>> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
>>>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
>>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
>>>
>>> You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
>>> in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
>>> is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
>>> explain force or potential.
>> I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
>> classical physics.
>>
>> Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
>> acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
>> the same.
>>
>> The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
>> effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
>
> Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.

Which depend on *different* gravity effects.

> Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
> the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...

GR time dilation effects don't care about resonant frequency changes.
They depend on whether the resonance is affected by the g acceleration.

> does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena
> called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects
> changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.

And the variation are *different*. Gravitational acceleration from a
point source depends on the inverse square of the distance.
Gravitational potential depends on the inverse of the distance. Easiest
way to tell: Double the distance. Gravitational acceleration is 1/4 as
much. The potential change is 1/2 as deep in the well.

>>> all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
>>> by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
>> Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
>> etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
>
> Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
> odd way to pretend it does.

I didn't.

Note that classical physics can't predict the lines more complicated
than hydrogen-like atoms.
>
>>>>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
>>>>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
>>
>>>> And why is that relevant?
>>>
>>> Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
>>> like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
>>> frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.

>> For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
>> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
>
> Prove this fatuous claim.

GM/r² vs. GM/r.

> You can’t.

I just did. NEXT!

> Because resonance does adequately model
> all your so called GR effects.

Because GR effects have nothing to do with resonance.

> There is no evidence to the contrary.

That the GPS system works is evidence.

Also other nations GNSS, with their satellites at different altitudes
(so using different corrections than GPS) is also evidence. Stellar
spectra from heavy stars.
>
>>> No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.

>> Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
>> massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
>> of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
>
> Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so called
> relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.

Nope. It simply doesn't work for different altitudes. Compare all the
GNSS systems in existence. No way to explain using acceleration/force
(GM/r²) since it doesn't even follow a 1/r² curve.

> Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
> natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.

A correctly designed system will not depend on the weight of anything
since it will depend on the 1/r² of its altitude. And the mass remains
the same.

> You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empirical
> observations on resonating systems.

The first prototype GPS satellite blew your claim out of the water in
1977, when it operated in Newton mode (no GR corrections) for 20 days,
didn't work, then was switched to Einstein mode (GR correction used) and
then it worked as expected.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 02:42:50 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Of course, Stupid Ken. I will also disagree that "192,631,774.1 cycles
> on the GPS clock contains the same number of invisible pink polkadot
> flying elephants as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock." Because
> absolute time is just as real as invisible pink polkadot flying
> elephants. That is, not real at all.

What is your proper time, right now, when you're reading
this question?
Still no answer? Of course. That's because your wristwatch
is not counting your delusional local idiocy at all.

All real times are absolute, and even that idiot Roberts
can be caught at admitting that real clocks are counting
something different than he's asserting they do.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 03:05:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> >>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> >>>>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>>>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>>>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> >>>>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> >>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>>>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >>>>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> >>>>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> >>>>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms..
> >>>>>> [snip bollocks]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> >>>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> >>>>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> >>>> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
> >>>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
> >>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
> >>>
> >>> You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
> >>> in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
> >>> is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
> >>> explain force or potential.
> >> I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
> >> classical physics.
> >>
> >> Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
> >> acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
> >> the same.
> >>
> >> The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
> >> effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
> >
> > Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models..
> Which depend on *different* gravity effects.

No. It depends on different interpretations of the same gravity effects.
You still have not yet understood that relativity and classical models
are distinct seperate theories.

> > Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
> > the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...
> GR time dilation effects don't care about resonant frequency changes.
> They depend on whether the resonance is affected by the g acceleration.

Exactly. Relativity ignores classical resonance. And pretends it’s effects
are due instead to magical time dilation. Complete nonsense of course.

> > does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena
> > called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects
> > changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
> And the variation are *different*. Gravitational acceleration from a
> point source depends on the inverse square of the distance.

And this proves that the natural frequency of a resonant system will not
change of its mass or weight changes?🤣😂🤣😂

> Gravitational potential depends on the inverse of the distance. Easiest
> way to tell: Double the distance. Gravitational acceleration is 1/4 as
> much. The potential change is 1/2 as deep in the well.
> >>> all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
> >>> by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
> >> Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
> >> etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
> >
> > Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
> > odd way to pretend it does.
> I didn't.
>
> Note that classical physics can't predict the lines more complicated
> than hydrogen-like atoms.

Note that QT can’t either.

> >
> >>>>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> >>>>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
> >>
> >>>> And why is that relevant?
> >>>
> >>> Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
> >>> like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
> >>> frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
>
> >> For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect..
> >> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
> >
> > Prove this fatuous claim.
> GM/r² vs. GM/r.
>
> > You can’t.
>
> I just did. NEXT!

No you didn’t. All you did was type ‘GM/r² vs. GM/r.’ into your reply.
And tried to pretend that this proves that increasing the weight
or mass of a system cannot result in an observed change in
natural frequency.

> > Because resonance does adequately model
> > all your so called GR effects.
> Because GR effects have nothing to do with resonance.

Correction. GR ignores the fact that resonance models effects seen
in GPS, pound Rebka or redshift of light from massive stars.

> > There is no evidence to the contrary.
> That the GPS system works is evidence.
>

Evidence only that resonance correctly models change in frequency
with change in altitude.

> Also other nations GNSS, with their satellites at different altitudes
> (so using different corrections than GPS) is also evidence. Stellar
> spectra from heavy stars.
> >
> >>> No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
>
> >> Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
> >> massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
> >> of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
> >
> > Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so called
> > relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.
> Nope. It simply doesn't work for different altitudes. Compare all the
> GNSS systems in existence. No way to explain using acceleration/force
> (GM/r²) since it doesn't even follow a 1/r² curve.

Nonsense. You have no evidence to prove that resonance does not correctly
model changes in natural frequencies due to G.
Citations please.

> > Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
> > natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.
> A correctly designed system will not depend on the weight of anything
> since it will depend on the 1/r² of its altitude. And the mass remains
> the same.

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:42:50 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 2:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> absolute time exists.
> >>
> >> Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute
> >> time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
> >>> 192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.
> >> Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Stupid Mike, are you disagreeing that "192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.??????
> Of course, Stupid Ken. I will also disagree that "192,631,774.1 cycles
> on the GPS clock contains the same number of invisible pink polkadot
> flying elephants as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock." Because
> absolute time is just as real as invisible pink polkadot flying
> elephants. That is, not real at all.

Hey stupid Mike why do you bother to invent 9,192631774.1 cycles for the GPS clock to describe the same interval of time? Why not just use 9192631,770 cycles to describe the same interval of time?
> >
> >> Assertions are not e[vidence.]
>
> Why haven't you *ever* learned this? After all, you were the one always
> stating that.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 03:05:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> >>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> >>>>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>>>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>>>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> >>>>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> >>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>>>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >>>>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> >>>>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> >>>>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms..
> >>>>>> [snip bollocks]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> >>>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> >>>>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> >>>> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
> >>>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
> >>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
> >>>
> >>> You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
> >>> in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
> >>> is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
> >>> explain force or potential.
> >> I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
> >> classical physics.
> >>
> >> Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
> >> acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
> >> the same.
> >>
> >> The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
> >> effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
> >
> > Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models..
> Which depend on *different* gravity effects.
> > Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
> > the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...
> GR time dilation effects don't care about resonant frequency changes.
> They depend on whether the resonance is affected by the g acceleration.
> > does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena
> > called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects
> > changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
> And the variation are *different*. Gravitational acceleration from a
> point source depends on the inverse square of the distance.
> Gravitational potential depends on the inverse of the distance. Easiest
> way to tell: Double the distance. Gravitational acceleration is 1/4 as
> much. The potential change is 1/2 as deep in the well.
> >>> all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
> >>> by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
> >> Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
> >> etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
> >
> > Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
> > odd way to pretend it does.
> I didn't.
>
> Note that classical physics can't predict the lines more complicated
> than hydrogen-like atoms.
> >
> >>>>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> >>>>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
> >>
> >>>> And why is that relevant?
> >>>
> >>> Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
> >>> like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
> >>> frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
>
> >> For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect..
> >> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
> >
> > Prove this fatuous claim.
> GM/r² vs. GM/r.
>
> > You can’t.
>
> I just did. NEXT!

Im not so sure you did. How do you come to the conclusion
r^2 applies to weight vs altitude?
GM/r^2 doesn’t calculate for weight at different heights!
That’s the formula for gravitational acceleration.
If anything GM/r is the correct formula for calculating resonance
vs altitude.
Seeing as gravitational potential energy F= weight * distance
Not d^2.

On 9/27/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 03:05:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:

>>>>>>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
>>>>>>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
>>>>
>>>>>> And why is that relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
>>>>> like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
>>>>> frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
>>
>>>> For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
>>>> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
>>>
>>> Prove this fatuous claim.

>> GM/r² vs. GM/r.
>>
>>> You can’t.
>>
>> I just did. NEXT!
>
> Im not so sure you did.

That's because you don't know what you don't know.

> How do you come to the conclusion
> r^2 applies to weight vs altitude?

Because gravitational acceleration is an inverse square effect. (1/r^2)

> GM/r^2 doesn’t calculate for weight at different heights!

That is the gravitational acceleration at the height, and therefore the
weight of a given mass m at that height. The weight (force) is therefore
GMm/r^2.

> That’s the formula for gravitational acceleration.

Exactly.

> If anything GM/r is the correct formula for calculating resonance
> vs altitude.

No, it isn't, because it isn't proportional to the acceleration or
weight of anything at that altitude r.

> Seeing as gravitational potential energy F= weight * distance

For distances small compared to r, so you can simplify it to being
linear with "small g". You can't do it for a distance large enough for a
significant difference in weight.

> Not d^2.

It's always the distance difference 1/r^2, but at or near the surface of
the earth it's simpler and "close enough" to use "little g" and d. Just
like how everyone knows that Newtonian laws are technically wrong but we
use them anyway for speeds small compared to c, the extra math isn't
worth it.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:01:17 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Because gravitational acceleration is an inverse square effect. (1/r^2)

Stupid Mike, poor idiot, there is no gravitational
acceleration in your moronic church. It's one of
these common sense prejudices. refuted by
your idiot guru.

Volney wrote:

> On 9/27/2023 5:44 AM, Lou wrote:
>> GM/r^2 doesn’t calculate for weight at different heights!
>
> That is the gravitational acceleration at the height, and therefore the
> weight of a given mass m at that height. The weight (force) is therefore
> GMm/r^2.

I like the way you tensor. Now please explain what mass is. Small masses
vs large masses. According to my "On the Divergent Mater of the Moving
Koerpers Model", masses are infinitesimal divergent infinities. And
therefore, conform Cantor, there are infinities embedded larger
infinities. Actually it makes sense.