Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass. This majority view is reflected in the article by Valev which cites numerous scientists sharing that view except for Stephen Hawking who cites c as invariant. It is a widely accepted fact that the invariant speed of light was established by Louis Essen in 1949, confirmed numerous times since. Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant. The public is still firmly convinced of that, seemingly unaware that in his general theory the speed of light increases with lower elevation. The basis of the variable c the majority of the scientific community believes is clearly the the fractional change in potential energy formula central to any interpretation in the Pound-Rebka. However, never was the speed of light meant to be established by the experiment, but only frequency change which increases as 1+gh/c^2 and clock speed which decreases according to 1-gh/c^2. The speed of light was never an objective of the experiment or stated to be a result of it, probably because gh/c^2 is only about the relative speed of falling bodies and the Pound-Rebka experiment wouldn’t add any information about that. The scientific community’s consensus that photons fall back at rate gh/c^2 after ejected at rate c would be based only on the assumption that they have mass. The Pound-Rebka experiment was never meant to decide one way or the other.
So, how can we find out what it really does say about c?

To say that I was shocked to discover this sharp contradiction in how the speed of light varies or not is an understatement. The experiment was meant to determine gravitational redshift at different elevations, not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor the speed of light variable or not. It was considered proof only that clock speed is reduced as frequency increases from higher to lower elevations. They key to how this may or may not affect c, is to understand what is meant by clock speed and why decrease in wavelength at lower elevations translates to decrease in clock speed. This has nothing to do with Einstein, but based squarely on the accepted scientific definition of a meter stated in terms of either frequency (or inversely wavelength) or the time it takes to get from point A to B. In the experiment, at elevation h a meter consists of n wavelengths of a spectral line of cesium. At elevation zero n number of wavelengths is now greater, for the sake of argument, let’s say 10n. Hence, at h, if it’s assumed it takes one second to get from A to B, then at zero it would take only one tenth of a second because the relative distance covered is only 1/10th. The space covered is only 1/10th. If the distance traveled at ground zero is only 1/10 of the distance covered at h, then the velocity of c is less at ground zero. By strict definition of a meter, and not my idea or Einstein’s theories, the velocity of c is smaller at lower elevations and not higher.

However, both lower and upper meters are unchanged by their own reckoning (local observers). At h, n wavelengths over a time t is a meter, and at ground zero, a meter is 10 wavelengths over time t/10, so the meters are locally unchanged while relative to an observer at another elevation, the unit of length itself varies, not the speed of c. This is what the measurements of c by Louis Essen confirm. Differences in the units themselves are accounted for by frequency shift. Since the wavelength in the upper meter is longer, the whole point of the experiment, the relative speed of c is greater to the same degree, but no difference in c is measureable. These facts have nothing to do with what theory one subscribes to, but by the definition of units and precise measurements; hence, the equations derived by Foos in Figures 1 and 2 are accurate and their logical interpretation sound.

Going by the correct delta notation and knowledge of measurements I used for eight years of sixteen hour days solving science math problems without getting them wrong, the positive sign in 1+gh/c^2 is a faulty interpretation of Pound-Rebka never intended by the experiment itself. The measured speed of c being invariant is instead explained by the experiment. It may be that c can be considered variable, but only in terms of the degree to which gravitational frequency shift dictates how much space between points A and B have expanded or contraced. In those terms, light accelerates upward, not downward. There is no basis whatsoever for believing that the speed of photons diminishes with distance from source. So that should be the end of that argument.

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 7:45:37 PM UTC-7, Foos Research wrote:
> Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass.

Thanks for confirming that you are an imbecile.

On 28-Mar-23 1:45 pm, Foos Research wrote:
> Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant.

The theory does nothing of the sort. The invariance of the speed of
light is a postulate for the theory.

Sylvia.

Le 28/03/2023 à 04:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> On 28-Mar-23 1:45 pm, Foos Research wrote:
>> Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory
>> proving c was invariant.
>
> The theory does nothing of the sort. The invariance of the speed of
> light is a postulate for the theory.
>
> Sylvia.

Except that there is a difference between the theory of Einstein and that
of Hachel.

For Einstein the speed of light is an invariant by change of reference
frame.

For Hachel, this is only true if the observation of the phenomenon is
transversal.

And Minkowski's space-time is collapsing.

And we can then explain everything that Einstein could not, such as the
instantaneous transfer of longitudinal information and the view of the
universe live-live in our telescopes.

Which drives them all crazy (men).

R.H.

On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 17:21:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/03/2023 à 04:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > On 28-Mar-23 1:45 pm, Foos Research wrote:
> >> Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory
> >> proving c was invariant.
> >
> > The theory does nothing of the sort. The invariance of the speed of
> > light is a postulate for the theory.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Except that there is a difference between the theory of Einstein and that
> of Hachel.
>
> For Einstein the speed of light is an invariant by change of reference
> frame.
>
> For Hachel, this is only true if the observation of the phenomenon is
> transversal.

And for sane people clocks should keep measuring
t'=t, and they do.

El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023 a las 23:45:37 UTC-3, Foos Research escribió:
> Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass. This majority view is reflected in the article by Valev which cites numerous scientists sharing that view except for Stephen Hawking who cites c as invariant. It is a widely accepted fact that the invariant speed of light was established by Louis Essen in 1949, confirmed numerous times since. Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant. The public is still firmly convinced of that, seemingly unaware that in his general theory the speed of light increases with lower elevation. The basis of the variable c the majority of the scientific community believes is clearly the the fractional change in potential energy formula central to any interpretation in the Pound-Rebka. However, never was the speed of light meant to be established by the experiment, but only frequency change which increases as 1+gh/c^2 and clock speed which decreases according to 1-gh/c^2. The speed of light was never an objective of the experiment or stated to be a result of it, probably because gh/c^2 is only about the relative speed of falling bodies and the Pound-Rebka experiment wouldn’t add any information about that. The scientific community’s consensus that photons fall back at rate gh/c^2 after ejected at rate c would be based only on the assumption that they have mass. The Pound-Rebka experiment was never meant to decide one way or the other.
> So, how can we find out what it really does say about c?
>
> To say that I was shocked to discover this sharp contradiction in how the speed of light varies or not is an understatement. The experiment was meant to determine gravitational redshift at different elevations, not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor the speed of light variable or not. It was considered proof only that clock speed is reduced as frequency increases from higher to lower elevations. They key to how this may or may not affect c, is to understand what is meant by clock speed and why decrease in wavelength at lower elevations translates to decrease in clock speed. This has nothing to do with Einstein, but based squarely on the accepted scientific definition of a meter stated in terms of either frequency (or inversely wavelength) or the time it takes to get from point A to B. In the experiment, at elevation h a meter consists of n wavelengths of a spectral line of cesium. At elevation zero n number of wavelengths is now greater, for the sake of argument, let’s say 10n. Hence, at h, if it’s assumed it takes one second to get from A to B, then at zero it would take only one tenth of a second because the relative distance covered is only 1/10th. The space covered is only 1/10th. If the distance traveled at ground zero is only 1/10 of the distance covered at h, then the velocity of c is less at ground zero. By strict definition of a meter, and not my idea or Einstein’s theories, the velocity of c is smaller at lower elevations and not higher.
>
> However, both lower and upper meters are unchanged by their own reckoning (local observers). At h, n wavelengths over a time t is a meter, and at ground zero, a meter is 10 wavelengths over time t/10, so the meters are locally unchanged while relative to an observer at another elevation, the unit of length itself varies, not the speed of c. This is what the measurements of c by Louis Essen confirm. Differences in the units themselves are accounted for by frequency shift. Since the wavelength in the upper meter is longer, the whole point of the experiment, the relative speed of c is greater to the same degree, but no difference in c is measureable. These facts have nothing to do with what theory one subscribes to, but by the definition of units and precise measurements; hence, the equations derived by Foos in Figures 1 and 2 are accurate and their logical interpretation sound.
>
> Going by the correct delta notation and knowledge of measurements I used for eight years of sixteen hour days solving science math problems without getting them wrong, the positive sign in 1+gh/c^2 is a faulty interpretation of Pound-Rebka never intended by the experiment itself. The measured speed of c being invariant is instead explained by the experiment. It may be that c can be considered variable, but only in terms of the degree to which gravitational frequency shift dictates how much space between points A and B have expanded or contraced. In those terms, light accelerates upward, not downward. There is no basis whatsoever for believing that the speed of photons diminishes with distance from source. So that should be the end of that argument.

You need to understand what a "speed of propagation of an interaction" means and how that implies the speed of light is constant.

Experiments show that instantaneous interactions do not exist in Nature. Actually any change, taking place in one of the interacting bodies, will influence the other bodies only after a lapse of a certain interval of time.
It is only after this time interval that processes, caused by the initial change, begin to take place in the second body. Dividing the distance between the two bodies by this time interval, we obtain the "speed of propagation of the interaction".

Note that this speed should be called the "maximum speed of propagation of the interaction", since it determines the minimum interval of time after which a change occurring in one body begins to manifest in another body.

It is clear that the existence of a maximum speed of propagation of interactions, implies that motions of bodies with greater speeds are impossible in Nature.

The reason is if that motion could occur, then by means of it one could realize an interaction with a speed exceeding the maximum possible speed of interactions.

As of today, the maximum speed of propagation of interactions (in vacuum) is the speed of light c.

On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 20:24:08 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023 a las 23:45:37 UTC-3, Foos Research escribió:
> > Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass. This majority view is reflected in the article by Valev which cites numerous scientists sharing that view except for Stephen Hawking who cites c as invariant. It is a widely accepted fact that the invariant speed of light was established by Louis Essen in 1949, confirmed numerous times since. Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant. The public is still firmly convinced of that, seemingly unaware that in his general theory the speed of light increases with lower elevation. The basis of the variable c the majority of the scientific community believes is clearly the the fractional change in potential energy formula central to any interpretation in the Pound-Rebka. However, never was the speed of light meant to be established by the experiment, but only frequency change which increases as 1+gh/c^2 and clock speed which decreases according to 1-gh/c^2. The speed of light was never an objective of the experiment or stated to be a result of it, probably because gh/c^2 is only about the relative speed of falling bodies and the Pound-Rebka experiment wouldn’t add any information about that. The scientific community’s consensus that photons fall back at rate gh/c^2 after ejected at rate c would be based only on the assumption that they have mass. The Pound-Rebka experiment was never meant to decide one way or the other.
> > So, how can we find out what it really does say about c?
> >
> > To say that I was shocked to discover this sharp contradiction in how the speed of light varies or not is an understatement. The experiment was meant to determine gravitational redshift at different elevations, not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor the speed of light variable or not. It was considered proof only that clock speed is reduced as frequency increases from higher to lower elevations. They key to how this may or may not affect c, is to understand what is meant by clock speed and why decrease in wavelength at lower elevations translates to decrease in clock speed. This has nothing to do with Einstein, but based squarely on the accepted scientific definition of a meter stated in terms of either frequency (or inversely wavelength) or the time it takes to get from point A to B. In the experiment, at elevation h a meter consists of n wavelengths of a spectral line of cesium. At elevation zero n number of wavelengths is now greater, for the sake of argument, let’s say 10n. Hence, at h, if it’s assumed it takes one second to get from A to B, then at zero it would take only one tenth of a second because the relative distance covered is only 1/10th. The space covered is only 1/10th. If the distance traveled at ground zero is only 1/10 of the distance covered at h, then the velocity of c is less at ground zero. By strict definition of a meter, and not my idea or Einstein’s theories, the velocity of c is smaller at lower elevations and not higher.
> >
> > However, both lower and upper meters are unchanged by their own reckoning (local observers). At h, n wavelengths over a time t is a meter, and at ground zero, a meter is 10 wavelengths over time t/10, so the meters are locally unchanged while relative to an observer at another elevation, the unit of length itself varies, not the speed of c. This is what the measurements of c by Louis Essen confirm. Differences in the units themselves are accounted for by frequency shift. Since the wavelength in the upper meter is longer, the whole point of the experiment, the relative speed of c is greater to the same degree, but no difference in c is measureable. These facts have nothing to do with what theory one subscribes to, but by the definition of units and precise measurements; hence, the equations derived by Foos in Figures 1 and 2 are accurate and their logical interpretation sound.
> >
> > Going by the correct delta notation and knowledge of measurements I used for eight years of sixteen hour days solving science math problems without getting them wrong, the positive sign in 1+gh/c^2 is a faulty interpretation of Pound-Rebka never intended by the experiment itself. The measured speed of c being invariant is instead explained by the experiment. It may be that c can be considered variable, but only in terms of the degree to which gravitational frequency shift dictates how much space between points A and B have expanded or contraced. In those terms, light accelerates upward, not downward. There is no basis whatsoever for believing that the speed of photons diminishes with distance from source. So that should be the end of that argument.
> You need to understand what a "speed of propagation of an interaction" means and how that implies the speed of light is constant.

Even the wildest gymnastics of your idiot guru couldn't
defend this nonsense and his GR shit had to abandon it.

On 3/27/23 9:45 PM, Foos Research wrote:
> [...] My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c
> is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment,

When you start with an egregious falsehood, I won't bother to read the
rest of your screed.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:43:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/27/23 9:45 PM, Foos Research wrote:
> > [...] My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c
> > is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment,
> When you start with an egregious falsehood, I won't bother to read the
> rest of your screed.
>
> Tom Roberts

Light speed is in Gamma and the equation for fundamental energy's density.
Light and atom have their own fundamental energy densities.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Foos Research wrote:

> strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your
> own edification.
> not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor
> the speed of light variable or not.

A falling radio signal is not Doppler shifted and neither, presumably, is
falling light. As a radio signal falls, it accelerates and its wavelength
increases but its wave arrival rate at a ground detector remains constant.

--
-- lover of truth

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:45:37 PM UTC-4, Foos Research wrote:
> Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass. This majority view is reflected in the article by Valev which cites numerous scientists sharing that view except for Stephen Hawking who cites c as invariant. It is a widely accepted fact that the invariant speed of light was established by Louis Essen in 1949, confirmed numerous times since. Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant. The public is still firmly convinced of that, seemingly unaware that in his general theory the speed of light increases with lower elevation. The basis of the variable c the majority of the scientific community believes is clearly the the fractional change in potential energy formula central to any interpretation in the Pound-Rebka. However, never was the speed of light meant to be established by the experiment, but only frequency change which increases as 1+gh/c^2 and clock speed which decreases according to 1-gh/c^2. The speed of light was never an objective of the experiment or stated to be a result of it, probably because gh/c^2 is only about the relative speed of falling bodies and the Pound-Rebka experiment wouldn’t add any information about that. The scientific community’s consensus that photons fall back at rate gh/c^2 after ejected at rate c would be based only on the assumption that they have mass. The Pound-Rebka experiment was never meant to decide one way or the other.
> So, how can we find out what it really does say about c?
>
> To say that I was shocked to discover this sharp contradiction in how the speed of light varies or not is an understatement. The experiment was meant to determine gravitational redshift at different elevations, not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor the speed of light variable or not. It was considered proof only that clock speed is reduced as frequency increases from higher to lower elevations. They key to how this may or may not affect c, is to understand what is meant by clock speed and why decrease in wavelength at lower elevations translates to decrease in clock speed. This has nothing to do with Einstein, but based squarely on the accepted scientific definition of a meter stated in terms of either frequency (or inversely wavelength) or the time it takes to get from point A to B. In the experiment, at elevation h a meter consists of n wavelengths of a spectral line of cesium. At elevation zero n number of wavelengths is now greater, for the sake of argument, let’s say 10n. Hence, at h, if it’s assumed it takes one second to get from A to B, then at zero it would take only one tenth of a second because the relative distance covered is only 1/10th. The space covered is only 1/10th. If the distance traveled at ground zero is only 1/10 of the distance covered at h, then the velocity of c is less at ground zero. By strict definition of a meter, and not my idea or Einstein’s theories, the velocity of c is smaller at lower elevations and not higher.
>
> However, both lower and upper meters are unchanged by their own reckoning (local observers). At h, n wavelengths over a time t is a meter, and at ground zero, a meter is 10 wavelengths over time t/10, so the meters are locally unchanged while relative to an observer at another elevation, the unit of length itself varies, not the speed of c. This is what the measurements of c by Louis Essen confirm. Differences in the units themselves are accounted for by frequency shift. Since the wavelength in the upper meter is longer, the whole point of the experiment, the relative speed of c is greater to the same degree, but no difference in c is measureable. These facts have nothing to do with what theory one subscribes to, but by the definition of units and precise measurements; hence, the equations derived by Foos in Figures 1 and 2 are accurate and their logical interpretation sound.
>
> Going by the correct delta notation and knowledge of measurements I used for eight years of sixteen hour days solving science math problems without getting them wrong, the positive sign in 1+gh/c^2 is a faulty interpretation of Pound-Rebka never intended by the experiment itself. The measured speed of c being invariant is instead explained by the experiment. It may be that c can be considered variable, but only in terms of the degree to which gravitational frequency shift dictates how much space between points A and B have expanded or contraced. In those terms, light accelerates upward, not downward. There is no basis whatsoever for believing that the speed of photons diminishes with distance from source. So that should be the end of that argument.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:50:48 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:45:37 PM UTC-4, Foos Research wrote:
> > Please, I am not seeking any feedback on this topic, but strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your own edification. My impression is that most of you cite your firm belief that c is variable according to 1+gh/c^2 inferred from the PR experiment, and hence that light falls literally at the same or greater rate than objects of mass. This majority view is reflected in the article by Valev which cites numerous scientists sharing that view except for Stephen Hawking who cites c as invariant. It is a widely accepted fact that the invariant speed of light was established by Louis Essen in 1949, confirmed numerous times since. Einstein himself became famous mostly as a result of his special theory proving c was invariant. The public is still firmly convinced of that, seemingly unaware that in his general theory the speed of light increases with lower elevation. The basis of the variable c the majority of the scientific community believes is clearly the the fractional change in potential energy formula central to any interpretation in the Pound-Rebka. However, never was the speed of light meant to be established by the experiment, but only frequency change which increases as 1+gh/c^2 and clock speed which decreases according to 1-gh/c^2. The speed of light was never an objective of the experiment or stated to be a result of it, probably because gh/c^2 is only about the relative speed of falling bodies and the Pound-Rebka experiment wouldn’t add any information about that. The scientific community’s consensus that photons fall back at rate gh/c^2 after ejected at rate c would be based only on the assumption that they have mass. The Pound-Rebka experiment was never meant to decide one way or the other.
> > So, how can we find out what it really does say about c?
> >
> > To say that I was shocked to discover this sharp contradiction in how the speed of light varies or not is an understatement. The experiment was meant to determine gravitational redshift at different elevations, not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor the speed of light variable or not. It was considered proof only that clock speed is reduced as frequency increases from higher to lower elevations. They key to how this may or may not affect c, is to understand what is meant by clock speed and why decrease in wavelength at lower elevations translates to decrease in clock speed. This has nothing to do with Einstein, but based squarely on the accepted scientific definition of a meter stated in terms of either frequency (or inversely wavelength) or the time it takes to get from point A to B. In the experiment, at elevation h a meter consists of n wavelengths of a spectral line of cesium. At elevation zero n number of wavelengths is now greater, for the sake of argument, let’s say 10n. Hence, at h, if it’s assumed it takes one second to get from A to B, then at zero it would take only one tenth of a second because the relative distance covered is only 1/10th. The space covered is only 1/10th. If the distance traveled at ground zero is only 1/10 of the distance covered at h, then the velocity of c is less at ground zero. By strict definition of a meter, and not my idea or Einstein’s theories, the velocity of c is smaller at lower elevations and not higher.
> >
> > However, both lower and upper meters are unchanged by their own reckoning (local observers). At h, n wavelengths over a time t is a meter, and at ground zero, a meter is 10 wavelengths over time t/10, so the meters are locally unchanged while relative to an observer at another elevation, the unit of length itself varies, not the speed of c. This is what the measurements of c by Louis Essen confirm. Differences in the units themselves are accounted for by frequency shift. Since the wavelength in the upper meter is longer, the whole point of the experiment, the relative speed of c is greater to the same degree, but no difference in c is measureable. These facts have nothing to do with what theory one subscribes to, but by the definition of units and precise measurements; hence, the equations derived by Foos in Figures 1 and 2 are accurate and their logical interpretation sound.
> >
> > Going by the correct delta notation and knowledge of measurements I used for eight years of sixteen hour days solving science math problems without getting them wrong, the positive sign in 1+gh/c^2 is a faulty interpretation of Pound-Rebka never intended by the experiment itself. The measured speed of c being invariant is instead explained by the experiment. It may be that c can be considered variable, but only in terms of the degree to which gravitational frequency shift dictates how much space between points A and B have expanded or contraced. In those terms, light accelerates upward, not downward. There is no basis whatsoever for believing that the speed of photons diminishes with distance from source. So that should be the end of that argument.

Speed of anything (including light) cannot be a universal constant in all frames........Why?
Because a universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) doesn't exist.

On 3/29/23 4:08 AM, Jane wrote:
> A falling radio signal is not Doppler shifted and neither,
> presumably, is falling light. As a radio signal falls, it accelerates
> and its wavelength increases but its wave arrival rate at a ground
> detector remains constant.

This is just plain not true. You REALLY need to learn basic physics. And
you need to state things more precisely.

Specifically, when a GPS satellite emits signals at 1023.0000004499 MHz,
they are received on the ground (geoid) at 1023.0000000000 MHz.

[Presumably that is what you mean by a "falling signal",
and the Doppler shift is manifest.]

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:03:56 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/29/23 4:08 AM, Jane wrote:
> > A falling radio signal is not Doppler shifted and neither,
> > presumably, is falling light. As a radio signal falls, it accelerates
> > and its wavelength increases but its wave arrival rate at a ground
> > detector remains constant.
> This is just plain not true. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Learn that we're FORCED!!! Because the way of
our Giant Guru is THE BEST WAY!!!!

>
> Specifically, when a GPS satellite emits signals at 1023.0000004499 MHz,

Nope, measured by a local clock of the satellite it's
1023, samely as measured by a clock on the ground.

On 3/29/23 12:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:03:56 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Specifically, when a GPS satellite emits signals at 1023.0000004499 MHz,
>
> Nope, measured by a local clock of the satellite it's
> 1023, samely as measured by a clock on the ground.

Not true, if by "local clock" you mean a STANDARD local clock (which is
the normal meaning of "clock"). Go read the GPS design specifications.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:08:43 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Foos Research wrote:
>
> > strongly suggest the group work to find consensus on the issue for your
> > own edification.
> > not the Doppler shift of falling objects which was never in doubt, nor
> > the speed of light variable or not.
> A falling radio signal is not Doppler shifted and neither, presumably, is
> falling light. As a radio signal falls, it accelerates and its wavelength
> increases but its wave arrival rate at a ground detector remains constant..

Light has a constant speed but curves instead of accelerating.
Light falls is its deflection outside the atom.
If it is absorbed... stored inside the atom it.. does fall changing in speed
with its falling atom.

Gravity changes the size of light. it influences its oscillation and energy..

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth

On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:44:52 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/29/23 12:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:03:56 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Specifically, when a GPS satellite emits signals at 1023.0000004499 MHz,
> >
> > Nope, measured by a local clock of the satellite it's
> > 1023, samely as measured by a clock on the ground.
> Not true, if by "local clock" you mean a STANDARD local clock (which is
> the normal meaning of "clock"). Go read the GPS design specifications.

True if by "local clock" you mean local clock instead
some wannabe standard from some gedankenwelt.
Go read the GPS design specifications.

On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 07:10:52 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:44:52 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 3/29/23 12:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 19:03:56 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> Specifically, when a GPS satellite emits signals at 1023.0000004499 MHz,
> > >
> > > Nope, measured by a local clock of the satellite it's
> > > 1023, samely as measured by a clock on the ground.
> > Not true, if by "local clock" you mean a STANDARD local clock (which is
> > the normal meaning of "clock"). Go read the GPS design specifications.
> True if by "local clock" you mean local clock instead
> some wannabe standard from some gedankenwelt.
> Go read the GPS design specifications.

See, poor halfbrain: you're bending on your backwards
to persuade everyone that your idiotic newspeak
is THE BEST WAY we're FORCED to, but it's not
and we're not. No serious clocks are obeying your
wannabe "STANDARD", no serious clocks ever will.
Face it.