It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:

1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.

2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.

3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.

4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.

5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.

6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.

7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.

AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.

The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.

Will this work?
GR proven by you at home for about $200?

It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
discrepancies being Einstein's GR.

If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).

NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:59:12 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
>
> 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
>
> 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
>
> 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
>
> 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
>
> AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
>
> The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
>
> Will this work?
> GR proven by you at home for about $200?
>
> It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
>
> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
>
> NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.

I'm sorry it doesn't cost 10,000,000 USD, or requires a 20 persons teamwork.. But maybe I'm fatally wrong
and proving "Einstein's right" should be a complex, sophisticated experiment based on statistics and long,
obscure explanations using quantum and nuclear jargon.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the
> difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts
> pole, with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit
> counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the
> length between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz
> oscillator to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of
> this oscillator to the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN
> EVERYTHING ON.

the oscillators has to be local, you cannot transmit, the same oscillator.
You won't see any difference otherwise.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 3:59:12 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).

The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:28:43 PM UTC-3, Jedadiah Sultana wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the
> > difference.
> >
> > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts
> > pole, with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit
> > counter.
> >
> > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the
> > length between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz
> > oscillator to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of
> > this oscillator to the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN
> > EVERYTHING ON.
> the oscillators has to be local, you cannot transmit, the same oscillator..
> You won't see any difference otherwise.

Obviously, you don't know shit about electronics, which is my specialty.

I clearly wrote: A 10 Ghz oscillator, with a MW power amplifier, feeding the DirecTV antenna.
A local copy (buffer) of this oscillator feeds the 50 bits counter.
So, no traditional radio scheme. Just a microwave source, amplified linearly, feeding the source antenna.

On the receiving side, 22.2 meters above, the antenna capture the strong 10 Ghz signal, with (probably) the Einstein's effect.
The output of the MW linear receiver, plus front end 10 Ghz filter, is DIRECTLY AMPLIFIED and injected into the 50 bits counter.

No signal processing, only amplification and filtering. Straight directly at 10 Ghz without ANY SINGLE INTERMEDIATE STAGE.

Once the data is residing on the digital world, any analog physic effect ceases to exist.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 3:59:12 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
> oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
> accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock

You don't get it. It's very simple.

At ground level, the output of THE ONLY EXISTING OSCILLATOR (10 GHz), is power amplified (say 1 watt)
and fed to the DirecTV antenna. A copy (analog amplifier) of this signal is fed to the ground 50 bits counter.
The counter receives continuously 10 nsec pulses (1/f), which counts and accumulate even for weeks, due
to the length of the digital 50 bit word.

The ground antenna is pointed exactly upwards, to the end of the 22.2 m pole, where an ANALOG AMPLIFIER/FILTER
receives the 10 Ghz (1 + gh/c^2), IF EINSTEIN IS RIGHT. If not, it receives an EXACT COPY of the transmitted signal.
ALLEGEDLY (P&R), gh/c^2 = 2.49E-15.

In 10 Ghz, this shift represents 0.0000249 Hz. The inverse of this POSSIBLE absolute shift is 40,161 seconds.

Every elapsed time of 40,161 seconds, the difference between the upper and lower 50 bit counters WOULD DIFFER IN "1".
In a day, the difference would be "2", and in a week it would be "14" pulses of difference.

If THIS HAPPENS, then Einstein's right, and I'll concede that he was right.

What makes this experiment cheap and TRANSPARENT IS:

1) Only ONE oscillator at ground level (put it up, if you want).
2) In 22.2 mt, the signal strength eliminates ANY interference (1 watt at 10 Ghz).
3) Once the signal is received, is LINEARLY AMPLIFIED and fed to the second 50 bits counter (using 10 Ghz + X as input).
4) As gh/c^2 WOULD BE a constant, it represents THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between both signals. When the two counters readings
are subtracted, ONLY AN ALLEGED DIFFERENCE of 0.0000249 Hz would exist and manifest every 40,161 seconds, cummulatively.
5) The precision/accuracy of the oscillator IS IRRELEVANT, because ANY variation would be replicated at the receptor.
6) No effects of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, WHATEVER, would affect the digital readouts.

That's it.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

<snip>

> The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
> oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
> accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock

No, this is false, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.

The upper signal would have the gh/c^2 = 2.49E-15 shift, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.

Discrepancies will accumulate at a rate of 1 pulse every 1/0.0000249 sec = 40,681 sec. 2 pulses in one day. 14 in 1 week, and so on.

What counts is the difference in the readings of the two 50 bit counters, unaltered for being in the digital domain.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
>
> 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
>
> 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
>
> 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
>
> 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
>
> AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
>
> The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
>
> Will this work?
> GR proven by you at home for about $200?
>
> It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
>
> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
>
> NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.

Dumbestfuck,

1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> >
> > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> >
> > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> >
> > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> >
> > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> >
> > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> >
> > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> >
> > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> >
> > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> >
> > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> >
> > Will this work?
> > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> >
> > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> >
> > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> >
> > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> Dumbestfuck,
>
> 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.

This is a TEST for hobbyists, that can be done at home.
Analog Devices can provide the 10 Ghz front end chip for free, as a sample. The remaining electronics is very cheap, for such an
"important" experiment.

Proving "Einstein's right" (or NOT) at home, and without any sophisticated million dollars equipment (or nuclear/quantum know-how).

Why don't you give a try and tell us?

Dealing with 22 meters is quite different than dealing with a satellite at a height of 20,500,000 meters moving at 3,900 m/sec, plus the fact
that you can't access any system onboard.

Einstein performed relativity test for under $200....A pretty girl and the relativity of time

He arranged, through Charlie Chaplin whom he knew personally, a meeting with Charlie’s wife Paulette Goddard, the movie star
and a very pretty woman indeed. When it felt to Einstein as if a minute had passed during the meeting with the radiant and delightful
Miss Goddard at the Grand Central Oyster Bar, he checked his watch to discover that actually 57 minutes had fled.

Einstein used a chrome waffle iron as a reasonable equivalent of a hot stove, because the woman who cooked for him had forbidden
him to get anywhere near the kitchen. He plugged in the waffle iron and when it heated up he sat on it, fully dressed.
He jumped up in less than a second but it felt to him as if a good hour had passed.
https://southerncrossreview.org/82/silagadze-einstein.html

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
>
> 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
>
> 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
>
> 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
>
> 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
>
> AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
>
> The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
>
> Will this work?
> GR proven by you at home for about $200?
>
> It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
>
> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
>
> NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:09:19 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> <snip>
> > The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
> > oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
> > accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock
> No, this is false, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
>
> The upper signal would have the gh/c^2 = 2.49E-15 shift, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
>
> Discrepancies will accumulate at a rate of 1 pulse every 1/0.0000249 sec = 40,681 sec. 2 pulses in one day. 14 in 1 week, and so on.
>
> What counts is the difference in the readings of the two 50 bit counters, unaltered for being in the digital domain.

LOCAL clocks are used to measure LOCAL time.

The upper readout does not provide local time. If you used
accurate, atomic precision clocks instead of cheap oscillators,
the upper readout will go out of sync with a free-running
atomic clock that is running right next to it, but it will remain
in sync with its ground-based master.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> >
> > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> Dumbestfuck,
>
> 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.

You didn't read Richard's proposal correctly. The upper
counter is a slave readout of the ground-based oscillator
It is not running as a local clock.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:58:44 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:09:19 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
> > > oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
> > > accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock
> > No, this is false, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
> >
> > The upper signal would have the gh/c^2 = 2.49E-15 shift, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
> >
> > Discrepancies will accumulate at a rate of 1 pulse every 1/0.0000249 sec = 40,681 sec. 2 pulses in one day. 14 in 1 week, and so on.
> >
> > What counts is the difference in the readings of the two 50 bit counters, unaltered for being in the digital domain.
> LOCAL clocks are used to measure LOCAL time.
>
> The upper readout does not provide local time. If you used
> accurate, atomic precision clocks instead of cheap oscillators,
> the upper readout will go out of sync with a free-running
> atomic clock that is running right next to it, but it will remain
> in sync with its ground-based master.

CORRECTION
No current commercial grade atomic clock that I am aware
of will be of sufficient precision for my statement to be true.

On 05-Mar-23 8:59 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
>
> 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
>
> 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
>
> 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
>
> 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
>
> AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
>
> The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
>
> Will this work?
> GR proven by you at home for about $200?
>
> It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
>
> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
>
> NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
>
>
>
>
As usual, you fail to understand the theory you're seeking to criticise.

It should be obvious that the two counters will remain synchronized,
since all the cycles of from the oscillator must reach both counters.
For the two counters to differ, some cycles would have to get lost. If
you visualise the waves as they rise up the pole, it must be clear that
they cannot get lost.

As Prokaryotic Capase Homolog explains, this means that the counter at
the top of pole is just a remote readout of the oscillator.

Sylvia.

On 3/4/2023 4:59 PM, Richard Hertz tarded:
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.

Bzzzzt. The signal from the oscillator will effectively DECREASE in
frequency on its way to the top of the pole and then INCREASE by the
exact same amount on the way down, so the frequency will be exactly the
same as that of the oscillator's direct connection!

NEXT!

(and you claim to be an engineer! Hah!)

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 04:58:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:09:19 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The upper counter serves as a remote readout of the ground
> > > oscillator. It is not a separate clock. No discrepancies will
> > > accumulate. This is nothing but a master-slave clock system.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_clock
> > No, this is false, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
> >
> > The upper signal would have the gh/c^2 = 2.49E-15 shift, IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT.
> >
> > Discrepancies will accumulate at a rate of 1 pulse every 1/0.0000249 sec = 40,681 sec. 2 pulses in one day. 14 in 1 week, and so on.
> >
> > What counts is the difference in the readings of the two 50 bit counters, unaltered for being in the digital domain.
> LOCAL clocks are used to measure LOCAL time.

In the wet dreams of relativistic morons,
only. Not in any real timekeeping system.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:15:04 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> > Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> Bzzzzt. The signal from the oscillator will effectively DECREASE in
> frequency on its way to the top of the pole and then INCREASE by the
> exact same amount on the way down, so the frequency will be exactly the
> same as that of the oscillator's direct connection!
>
> NEXT!
>
> (and you claim to be an engineer! Hah!)

YOU claim to be an EE, but a very poor gifted one. Not to mention your capabilities as an amateur physicist.

The very basis of this stupid theory lies on three concepts, clearly explained by 1911 Einstein, and ADOPTED by Pound on his
1959 paper: "GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE".

Concept 1): Involves Planck's E = hf as photon's energy and gravitational EM energy shift Δf/f = Φ(r)/c².
Concept 2): Involves m = E/c² = hf/c² as "apparent mass" of photons.
Concept 3): Photons give up energy to Φ(r) as they blue-shift (coming to you), and photons take energy from Φ(r) as they red-shift.

They repeated, with minor corrections, Einstein's 1911 formula:

Δf/f = gh/c² (1 + h/R) = 2.49E-15, for h = 22.2 meters. This value was, ALLEGEDLY, proven right on their 1960 paper: "APPARENT
WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".

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

It's the ENERGY OF PHOTONS what is claimed that change, while moving on a gravitational field. NO atomic clock was involved then.

Going back to the "home made" experiment that I proposed in the OP, it HAS TO BE CLEAR for any person with a functioning brain
that IF you use a 10 Ghz oscillator (at ground level OR at 22.2 meters high), the ABSOLUTE frequency shift COULD BE (Einstein's right):

|Δf| = 10,000,000,000 |δ(h)|

If Einstein is right, δ(h) = gh/c² (1 + h/R).
If Einstein is WRONG, δ(h) = 0 (ZERO).

As for 10 Ghz, |Δf| is in the order of μHz, the accumulated difference between the two counters PRODUCES ONE COUNT ("1") of
difference every ΔT = 1/[10,000,000,000 |δ(h)|] SECONDS.

So, you can even FIND |δ(h)| = 1/(10,000,000,000 ΔT)

For |δ(h)| = 2.49E-15, ΔT = 40,161 seconds.

And the DIFFERENCE CAUSED BY THE FREQUENCY SHIFT would accumulate every ΔT elapsed time.

In a week, the difference in counts would be ΔN = 604,800/40,161 = 15 pulses.

It doesn't matter here WHERE the 10 Ghz oscillator is placed (ground level or at the top of the pole). The difference
between the two 50 bit counters would have a relative sign, which doesn't matter.

You are TWISTING, DEFORMING and even REFUTING Pound&Rebka 1960 experiment OR Pound 1965 experiment.

ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY?

Or you just CAN'T STAND THAT A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT CAN SHOW BETTER AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT effect?

The technology required for this (on-the-shelf electronics) wasn't available 60 years ago. Not even 25 years ago.

Just in the last 10/15 years, companies like Analog Devices are distributing 10 Ghz 2:1 dividers (with free samples).

If you use 1 Ghz oscillator, it would take 10 more seconds to produce ONE COUNT (about every 5 days) BUT, as the effect
is accumulative and INSENSITIVE to local environment, it would work (day after day) for months, until it overflows and start over.

You don't like it, Volney. Isn't it? You hate this simplicity and want to insert relativity jargon, like local time, spacetime, etc.

IMBECILE, why don't you complain that P&R didn't use any of your SHITTY names? Go to complain to Harvard.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> As usual, you fail to understand the theory you're seeking to criticise.
>
> It should be obvious that the two counters will remain synchronized,
> since all the cycles of from the oscillator must reach both counters.
> For the two counters to differ, some cycles would have to get lost. If
> you visualise the waves as they rise up the pole, it must be clear that
> they cannot get lost.
>
> As Prokaryotic Capase Homolog explains, this means that the counter at
> the top of pole is just a remote readout of the oscillator.
>
> Sylvia.

As usual, you write nonsense. In this case, YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NOT LOST PULSES/CYCLES!

Shame on you, relativist.

As per Einstein's formula, the PHASE/FREQUENCY OF THE SINGLE CARRIER is constantly modified along the trajectory.

You do know that phase and frequency are intimately related, do you?

Do you know that frequency synthesizers used in space and military work by phase accumulation using 256/512 bits counters?

Go back to basic sinewave equations and relearn what you forgot.

Prokaryotic can't explain anything to me. THIS IS MY SPECIALTY, NOT HIS (and, obviously, not yours).

Don't let your hatred perception blind your reason.

Den 04.03.2023 22:59, skrev Richard Hertz:
> It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
>
> 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
>
> 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
>
> 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
>
> 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
>
> 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
>
> 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.

This is incredible naive!

The following is true according to Newton and GR:

Both counters will count every cycle from the source.

If you visually observe both counters from the base of the pole, the
upper counter will always show 1481 counts less than the lower counter.
(The upper counter will be seen to show zero while
the lower counter shows < 1481 counts)
You can obviously compensate for the signal delay. (Computer)

If you visually observe both counters from the top of the pole,
both counters will always show exactly the same number of counts.

The point is that visually observations, or signal transmission
through transmission lines, will, when compensated for signal delay,
always result in that both counters always will show the same.

This will be true regardless of how long time the counting go on.

Why do you think that GR predicts that the counters, compared this way,
would show different count?

I will tell you how you could modify your experiment so
that you (in principle) could test the GR prediction.

You must have a precise atomic clock at both the counters.
These clocks are started on the first count, and stopped
at count 401606425702811.
Then you can compare the clocks.
GR predicts that that the lower clock would show
40160.6425702811 seconds while the upper clock would show
40160.6425702812 seconds.

That means that the frequency of the oscillator is:
401606425702811/40160.6425702811 Hz = 10 GHz

The received frequency on the top is:
401606425702811/40160.6425702812 Hz = 9.999999999999975 GHz

>
> 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
>
> AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
>
> The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.

Quite. This IS simple.
If you send the signal from the counters to
the computer in transmission lines, you can
compensate for the signal delay in the transmission
lines, and the result will be that the counters always
show the same, which is what both Newton and GR predicts.

The point is that you don't understand what GR predicts,
which is that the proper times during which the counters
receive the same number of pulses are different.

GR does NOT predict that the number of cycles are different.

So you must have two clocks which measure the proper times.

>
> Will this work?
> GR proven by you at home for about $200?
>
> It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
>
> If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
>
> NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
>
>
>
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:09:08 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> > >
> > > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> > 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.
> You didn't read Richard's proposal correctly. The upper
> counter is a slave readout of the ground-based oscillator
> It is not running as a local clock.

You are talking out of your ass again. This is precisely why I referred Dick to the GPS early days experiment (because it contradicts his erroneous setup)

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> > >
> > > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> > >
> > > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> > >
> > > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> > >
> > > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> > >
> > > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> > >
> > > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> > > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> > > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> > >
> > > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> > >
> > > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> > >
> > > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> > >
> > > Will this work?
> > > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> > >
> > > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> > >
> > > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> > 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.
> This is a TEST for hobbyists, that can be done at home.
> Analog Devices can provide the 10 Ghz front end chip for free, as a sample. The remaining electronics is very cheap, for such an
> "important" experiment.
>
> Proving "Einstein's right" (or NOT) at home, and without any sophisticated million dollars equipment (or nuclear/quantum know-how).
>
> Why don't you give a try and tell us?
>
> Dealing with 22 meters is quite different than dealing with a satellite at a height of 20,500,000 meters moving at 3,900 m/sec, plus the fact
> that you can't access any system onboard.

Dumbestfuck,

1. You can't run the experiment correctly for 200$ because you will need two very precise clocks (that you didn't factor in) in order to get the "40,161 seconds" when to stop the two counters
2. Now, if you add the two clocks, you will see that the clock at the "top" is running fast, so it will reach the
"40,161 seconds" quicker than the clock at the "bottom" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "top" counts faster because of the input frequency being higher than at the bottom, the effects cancel each other.
3.The clock at the "bottom" is running slow, so it will reach the
"40,161 seconds" slower than the clock at the "top" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "bottom" counts slower because of the input frequency being lower than at the top, the effects cancel each other.
4. Conclusion, when the two counters are stopped, they will show the same exact number of pulses. On the other hand, the GPS experiment I mentioned will confirm GR prediction correctness and Newtonian prediction incorrectness
Also, you have shown your agnorrance once again.

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 16:23:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > > > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > > > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > > > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > > > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > > > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > > > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> > > >
> > > > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > > > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> > > >
> > > > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > > > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> > > >
> > > > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> > > > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > > > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> > > > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> > > >
> > > > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > > > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> > > >
> > > > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > > > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > > > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > > > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> > > >
> > > > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > > > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> > > >
> > > > Will this work?
> > > > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > > > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > > > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> > > >
> > > > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > > > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> > > Dumbestfuck,
> > >
> > > 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> > > 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.
> > This is a TEST for hobbyists, that can be done at home.
> > Analog Devices can provide the 10 Ghz front end chip for free, as a sample. The remaining electronics is very cheap, for such an
> > "important" experiment.
> >
> > Proving "Einstein's right" (or NOT) at home, and without any sophisticated million dollars equipment (or nuclear/quantum know-how).
> >
> > Why don't you give a try and tell us?
> >
> > Dealing with 22 meters is quite different than dealing with a satellite at a height of 20,500,000 meters moving at 3,900 m/sec, plus the fact
> > that you can't access any system onboard.
> Dumbestfuck,
>
>
> 1. You can't run the experiment correctly for 200$ because you will need two very precise clocks (that you didn't factor in) in order to get the "40,161 seconds" when to stop the two counters
> 2. Now, if you add the two clocks, you will see that the clock at the "top" is running fast, so it will reach the
> "40,161 seconds" quicker than the clock at the "bottom" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "top" counts faster because of the input frequency being higher than at the bottom, the effects cancel each other.
> 3.The clock at the "bottom" is running slow, so it will reach the
> "40,161 seconds" slower than the clock at the "top" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "bottom" counts slower because of the input frequency being lower than at the top, the effects cancel each other.
> 4. Conclusion, when the two counters are stopped, they will show the same exact number of pulses. On the other hand, the GPS experiment I mentioned will confirm GR prediction correctness and Newtonian prediction incorrectness

A lie, of course - GPS shows clearly that time (as
defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
with the precision of an acceptable error.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:26:27 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 16:23:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > > > > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > > > > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > > > > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > > > > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > > > > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > > > > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > > > > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > > > > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses..
> > > > > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > > > > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> > > > > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > > > > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> > > > >
> > > > > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > > > > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > > > > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > > > > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> > > > >
> > > > > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > > > > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will this work?
> > > > > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > > > > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > > > > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> > > > >
> > > > > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > > > > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> > > > Dumbestfuck,
> > > >
> > > > 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> > > > 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.
> > > This is a TEST for hobbyists, that can be done at home.
> > > Analog Devices can provide the 10 Ghz front end chip for free, as a sample. The remaining electronics is very cheap, for such an
> > > "important" experiment.
> > >
> > > Proving "Einstein's right" (or NOT) at home, and without any sophisticated million dollars equipment (or nuclear/quantum know-how).
> > >
> > > Why don't you give a try and tell us?
> > >
> > > Dealing with 22 meters is quite different than dealing with a satellite at a height of 20,500,000 meters moving at 3,900 m/sec, plus the fact
> > > that you can't access any system onboard.
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> >
> > 1. You can't run the experiment correctly for 200$ because you will need two very precise clocks (that you didn't factor in) in order to get the "40,161 seconds" when to stop the two counters
> > 2. Now, if you add the two clocks, you will see that the clock at the "top" is running fast, so it will reach the
> > "40,161 seconds" quicker than the clock at the "bottom" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "top" counts faster because of the input frequency being higher than at the bottom, the effects cancel each other.
> > 3.The clock at the "bottom" is running slow, so it will reach the
> > "40,161 seconds" slower than the clock at the "top" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "bottom" counts slower because of the input frequency being lower than at the top, the effects cancel each other.
> > 4. Conclusion, when the two counters are stopped, they will show the same exact number of pulses. On the other hand, the GPS experiment I mentioned will confirm GR prediction correctness and Newtonian prediction incorrectness
> A lie, of course - GPS shows clearly that time (as
> defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
> with the precision of an acceptable error.
You are supposed to clean the latrines, not to eat their contents.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 11:10:28 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.03.2023 22:59, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> >
> > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> >
> > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> >
> > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> >
> > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> >
> > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> >
> > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK.
> > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> This is incredible naive!
>
> The following is true according to Newton and GR:
>
> Both counters will count every cycle from the source.
>
> If you visually observe both counters from the base of the pole, the
> upper counter will always show 1481 counts less than the lower counter.
> (The upper counter will be seen to show zero while
> the lower counter shows < 1481 counts)
> You can obviously compensate for the signal delay. (Computer)
>
> If you visually observe both counters from the top of the pole,
> both counters will always show exactly the same number of counts.
>
> The point is that visually observations, or signal transmission
> through transmission lines, will, when compensated for signal delay,
> always result in that both counters always will show the same.
>
> This will be true regardless of how long time the counting go on.
>
> Why do you think that GR predicts that the counters, compared this way,
> would show different count?
>
> I will tell you how you could modify your experiment so
> that you (in principle) could test the GR prediction.
>
> You must have a precise atomic clock at both the counters.
> These clocks are started on the first count, and stopped
> at count 401606425702811.
> Then you can compare the clocks.
> GR predicts that that the lower clock would show
> 40160.6425702811 seconds while the upper clock would show
> 40160.6425702812 seconds.
>
> That means that the frequency of the oscillator is:
> 401606425702811/40160.6425702811 Hz = 10 GHz
>
> The received frequency on the top is:
> 401606425702811/40160.6425702812 Hz = 9.999999999999975 GHz
> >
> > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> >
> > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> >
> > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> Quite. This IS simple.
> If you send the signal from the counters to
> the computer in transmission lines, you can
> compensate for the signal delay in the transmission
> lines, and the result will be that the counters always
> show the same, which is what both Newton and GR predicts.
>
> The point is that you don't understand what GR predicts,
> which is that the proper times during which the counters
> receive the same number of pulses are different.
>
> GR does NOT predict that the number of cycles are different.
>
> So you must have two clocks which measure the proper times.
> >
> > Will this work?
> > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> >
> > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> >
> > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> >
> > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

This is sad, very sad. You should have understood this, Paul, being an EE who was very involved in microelectronics
and uP, PIC and digital electronics plus other things. You CAN'T think clearly OUT OF YOUR RELATIVITY DOGMAS and,
for your utter shame, you include delays in transmission lines? Outrageous, shame on you. Go back to college and drop
your diploma at the entrance.

I'll repeat, with more clarity, what happens in the experiment:

1) You have an oscillator in the MW region, not a precision one. It oscillates at f₀ = 10,000,000,000.000000 Hz (accept this,
even for a while).

2) IF Δf/f = gh/c² (1 + h/R) = 2.49E-15, for h = 22.2 meters (P&R, Einstein's right), the DIRECT IRRADIATION of the source f₀,
after passing through a 1 Watt power amplified and fed to the DirectTV antenna at the base, reaches the RECEIVING ANTENNA
at the top of the pole with frequency f₁ = f₀ (1 + 2.49E-15).

f₁ = (10,000,000,000.000000 + 0.0000249) Hz = 10,000,000,000.0000249 Hz

3) The DIFFERENCE in the counting of both counters is Δf = 0.0000249 Hz (ONLY IF EINSTEIN'S RIGHT).

Such DIFFERENCE produces an increase of ONE COUNT (INTEGER 1), after ΔT = 1/Δf = 40,160.64 SECONDS PASSED.

And every N ΔT = N x 40,160.64 sec, the DIGITAL DIFFERENCE increases, accumulative, in ONE INTEGER DIGIT (N = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...)

It means above A DIFFERENCE OF 2 could happen in one day, a difference of 15 could happen in one week or a difference of 64
could happen in one month (30 days). And, if Einstein's right, this difference would increase at a rate of 15/week until the counters
overflow.

And, as Dono just wrote, I DON'T NEED TO MEASURE ΔT = 1/Δf = 40,160.64 seconds.

I JUST LET THE ARRANGEMENT RUN FREELY and, eventually, every couple of days (86,400 seconds/day) I GO TO CHECK
THE COMPUTER READOUT.

With this arrangement, the ONLY THING that I need to check is that THE DIFFERENCE ACCUMULATE at a rate of ABOUT
TWO COUNTS/DAY.

No atomic clock reference is needed, because I'm NOT MEASURING the exact value of gh/c² (1 + h/R).

I'm just checking that, for some strange reason, THE DIFFERENCE INCREASES CONTINUOUSLY.

And, to APPROXIMATE the real value of gh/c² (1 + h/R), IF IT'S REAL, I only need to verify the TIME LAPSE IN WHICH THE
COUNT INCREASES BY TWO (to dismiss the classic digital error of ± 1 LSB).

If I write down and average 10 different readouts, I would have approximated a good estimation of gh/c² (1 + h/R), WITHOUT
A FUCKING ATOMIC CLOCK OF ANY KIND.

If you don't get THIS, either for ignorance or SEVERE RELATIVISTIC BUTTHURT, don't blame me.

I don't know how to DUMB DOWN THIS MORE, so it can enter on any thick skull..

Have some respect for A FUCKING EXPERT ON THIS SHIT, with decades of hands-on experience ON THIS MATTER.

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 16:35:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:26:27 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 16:23:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 1:59:12 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > It is simple and inexpensive. A relativity test at your home:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Get one 10 Ghz oscillator, two DirecTV antennae, two 10 Ghz power
> > > > > > amplifiers, a 22.2 meters pole, two 50 bits digital counters, one PC and
> > > > > > some electronics to read the digital counters and present the difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Put a PASSIVE receptor/amplifier at the top of the erected 22.2 mts pole,
> > > > > > with the electronics to count and store the readings of the 50 bit counter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Do a similar arrangement at the base of the pole, and adjust the length
> > > > > > between antennae to be 22.2 meters. Use the ONLY ONE 10 Ghz oscillator
> > > > > > to transmit up to the top of the pole. Derive an output of this oscillator to
> > > > > > the second 50 bit counter at ground level. TURN EVERYTHING ON.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) As Pound&Rebka ALLEGEDLY proved with 14.4 KeV gamma photons,
> > > > > > the MW signal should have suffered a change of 2.49E-15 shift in frequency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5) With 10 Ghz signals (it doesn't matter the quality of the oscillator), a
> > > > > > difference of 0.0000249 Hz SHOULD EXIST between both extremes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6) Let the 50 bit counters accumulate counting of 0.1 nsec pulses.
> > > > > > Every 40,161 seconds, A DIFFERENCE OF 1 PULSE SHOULD APPEAR.
> > > > > > This is close to a difference of 2 PULSES/DAY or 15 PULSES/WEEK..
> > > > > > Then, if this happens, Einstein's right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 7) No temperature compensation is required, no atomic clock stability is
> > > > > > required. You can even use a resonant cavity without any care to do the job.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF EM ENERGY AT THE GROUND LEVEL,
> > > > > > AND THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE ANALOG WORLD TO THE
> > > > > > DIGITAL WORD IN THE TWO 50 BITS COUNTERS (ABOUT 16 DIGITS), YOU
> > > > > > CAN LET THE THING RUNNING FOR WEEKS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The computer SW to be used to read the counters and present the data
> > > > > > is a no-brainer. Even a kid could do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will this work?
> > > > > > GR proven by you at home for about $200?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't matter the stability of the source, as both 50 bit counters will
> > > > > > count the same cycles of the 10 Ghz signal, with the only source of
> > > > > > discrepancies being Einstein's GR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If something is missing on this arrangement, please put it on, instead of
> > > > > > bitching around, crying foul (Dono, JanPB, Volney,...).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOTE: THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS TO PROVE RELATIVITY AT HOME.
> > > > > Dumbestfuck,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. This experiment has already been done. When GPS was launched, the engineering did not turn on the GR correction, the net effect was that the satellite clock drifted ahead of the ground clock. When the frequency driving the satellite clock was lowered in order to agree with the GR prediction, the two clock frequencies aligned. This stands to this day.
> > > > > 2. There is no way of "proving" a theory , there are only ways of confirming and ways of falsifying theories.
> > > > This is a TEST for hobbyists, that can be done at home.
> > > > Analog Devices can provide the 10 Ghz front end chip for free, as a sample. The remaining electronics is very cheap, for such an
> > > > "important" experiment.
> > > >
> > > > Proving "Einstein's right" (or NOT) at home, and without any sophisticated million dollars equipment (or nuclear/quantum know-how).
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you give a try and tell us?
> > > >
> > > > Dealing with 22 meters is quite different than dealing with a satellite at a height of 20,500,000 meters moving at 3,900 m/sec, plus the fact
> > > > that you can't access any system onboard.
> > > Dumbestfuck,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. You can't run the experiment correctly for 200$ because you will need two very precise clocks (that you didn't factor in) in order to get the "40,161 seconds" when to stop the two counters
> > > 2. Now, if you add the two clocks, you will see that the clock at the "top" is running fast, so it will reach the
> > > "40,161 seconds" quicker than the clock at the "bottom" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "top" counts faster because of the input frequency being higher than at the bottom, the effects cancel each other.
> > > 3.The clock at the "bottom" is running slow, so it will reach the
> > > "40,161 seconds" slower than the clock at the "top" . Combined with the fact that the counter at the "bottom" counts slower because of the input frequency being lower than at the top, the effects cancel each other.
> > > 4. Conclusion, when the two counters are stopped, they will show the same exact number of pulses. On the other hand, the GPS experiment I mentioned will confirm GR prediction correctness and Newtonian prediction incorrectness
> > A lie, of course - GPS shows clearly that time (as
> > defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean
> > with the precision of an acceptable error.
> You are supposed to clean the latrines, not to eat their contents.

See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
ever had and you're just a poor religious maniac of 2
sort. Of course you can't discuss against me, you
can only bark, spit and slander. But you'll do what
you can for The Shit you love.