On 9/19/23 8:47 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned
> performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
> polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any GR
> correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than the
> equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
> Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo
> satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
> would be merely one correction among many other corrections that
> needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
>
> Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo
> clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with the
> increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset
> every several years. It did not make sense to me that any system
> should be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several
> years. Several days later, by analyzing the available log files,
> Paul answered my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although
> theoretically not needing to require a hardware GR correction to
> function properly, were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with
> Earthbound clocks.

If the Galileo satellite clocks were not corrected for GR, a_f0 would be
completely inadequate to account for this. The bulk of the correction
would have to be in the term linear in time, as over a single day it
would have to increase by ~38 microseconds. The designers realized that
as the correction gets larger (growing ~14 milliseconds per year), it
gets progressively more difficult to construct an accurate high-order
polynomial, ultimately making the system inaccurate at best, and
unusable at worst. So they changed the design to correct the satellite
clocks by the factor predicted by GR.

(Those are GPS numbers; Galileo satellites are a bit
higher, so its numbers are actually larger.)

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 15:47:03 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:56:24 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 19.09.2023 06:08, skrev Richard Hertz:>
> > > Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,
> > Easy.
> > Relativity tells us that the clock in the satellite must
> > be adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 to stay in sync
> > with GPS coordinated time.
> >
> > But since no clock is infinitely precise, and the SV-clocks
> > are never corrected while the SVs are in service, the time
> > reported by the satellite must be corrected in the receiver
> > by the correction polynomial sent from the SV.
> > The first order parameter a_f0 is the "clock offset",
> > the error of the SV_clock.
> >
> > Since a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
> > of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms,
> > or the register containing it will overflow.
> >
> > If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
> > more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, the "clock offset"
> > would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
> Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned
> performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
> polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any
> GR correction.

Will you now join stupid Mike in his assertions that
setting the clocks to your SI idiocy is "Newton mode",
trash?
They are no way "GR" corrections, they're violating
your postulates, your ISO, all of your moronic
prophecies.

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 17:39:15 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/19/23 8:47 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned
> > performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
> > polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any GR
> > correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than the
> > equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
> > Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo
> > satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
> > would be merely one correction among many other corrections that
> > needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
> >
> > Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo
> > clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with the
> > increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset
> > every several years. It did not make sense to me that any system
> > should be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several
> > years. Several days later, by analyzing the available log files,
> > Paul answered my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although
> > theoretically not needing to require a hardware GR correction to
> > function properly, were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with
> > Earthbound clocks.
> If the Galileo satellite clocks were not corrected for GR

If they were left uncorrected, which is your proper, BEST WAY ,
the way we're FORCED - they would be pretty useless. Just
like most of your mad concepts.

Den 19.09.2023 15:47, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:56:24 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 19.09.2023 06:08, skrev Richard Hertz:>
>>> Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,
>> Easy.
>> Relativity tells us that the clock in the satellite must
>> be adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 to stay in sync
>> with GPS coordinated time.
>>
>> But since no clock is infinitely precise, and the SV-clocks
>> are never corrected while the SVs are in service, the time
>> reported by the satellite must be corrected in the receiver
>> by the correction polynomial sent from the SV.
>> The first order parameter a_f0 is the "clock offset",
>> the error of the SV_clock.
>>
>> Since a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
>> of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms,
>> or the register containing it will overflow.
>>
>> If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
>> more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, the "clock offset"
>> would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
>
> Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned
> performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
> polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any
> GR correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than
> the equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
> Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo
> satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
> would be merely one correction among many other corrections
> that needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
>
> Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo
> clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with the
> increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset every
> several years. It did not make sense to me that any system should
> be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several years.
> Several days later, by analyzing the available log files, Paul answered
> my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although theoretically not
> needing to require a hardware GR correction to function properly,
> were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with Earthbound clocks.

September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Open this link:
> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
> see fig.8 page 11.
>
> The clock offset (a_f0) will be the dominating factor
> in the clock correction.
>
> The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has been almost constant
> ≈ -500 μS since April 2019 to January 2021,
> The clock has been ≈500 μS ahead of System time all the time.
>
> The GSAT0220/E33 clock correction has been almost constant
> ≈ +380 μS since February 2019 to January 2021,
> The clock has been ≈380 μS behind System time all the time.
>
> The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.1 μS/day
>
> The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 420 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.5 μS/day
>
> So the clock frequencies must have been corrected by
> the factor -4.7219E-10.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:39:16 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Open this link:
> > https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
> > see fig.8 page 11.
> >
> > The clock offset (a_f0) will be the dominating factor in the clock correction.

<snip>

> > So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
>
> --
> Paul

What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?

These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.

You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.

Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?

Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.

Figure 8. Satellite clock corrections as derived from the broadcast navigation data after the satellites
were declared operational. The left plot displays the magnitude of the corrections. The right plot
displays the same data after removing a linear-squares fit. No breakpoints were applied. It reveals
several jumps in the correction magnitude as well as changes in trend over time. [Unit: microsecond].

READ THIS!

The plot on the right shows the corrections after removal of the linear trend (i.e., linear
least-squares fit to data was subtracted). No breakpoints are considered. This plot shows
smaller magnitude correction jumps and changes in trends over different periods of time.
In addition, the detrended values show higher order effects related to the changes in the
satellite clock drift parameter.

On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>
>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>
> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> wasnt even considered in 1915.

Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)

Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.

> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.

And why do you believe such garbage?

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:01:04 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>
> >>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> > to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> > Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> > by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> > wasnt even considered in 1915.
> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
>
> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
> > Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> > damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> > is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> > refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
> And why do you believe such garbage?

Einstein (1905-1911): Gravity affects time. Time is what my clock shows. So, then, gravity affect clocks.

Any kind of clock.

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>
> >>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> > to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> > Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> > by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> > wasnt even considered in 1915.
> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
>
> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
> > Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> > damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> > is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> > refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
> And why do you believe such garbage?

Obviously facts, empirical observations and rational logical methods Of
deduction are garbage to wacko relativists like yourself.
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.

On 9/20/2023 12:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:01:04 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>
>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
>>
>> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
>>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
>>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
>>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
>> And why do you believe such garbage?
>
>
> Einstein (1905-1911): Gravity affects time. Time is what my clock shows. So, then, gravity affect clocks.
>
> Any kind of clock.
>
And...? Yes, it will affect any type of clock (cyclical event device).

Thanks for admitting GR works.

On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>
>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
>>
>> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
>>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
>>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
>>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
>> And why do you believe such garbage?
>
> Obviously facts,

"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
are actually facts.

> empirical observations

Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.

> Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
> the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
> or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
> Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
> GR nonsense.

True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.

> So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
> resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
> is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.

That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:27:59 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
> >> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
> >> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
> >>
> >> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
> >> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
> >>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> >>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> >>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> >>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
> >> And why do you believe such garbage?
> >
> > Obviously facts,
> "Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
> are actually facts.
>
> > empirical observations
>
> Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.

And in the meantime in the rel world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring improper
t'=t in improper seconds.

> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will

There is no gravitational time dilation (neither any other),
GPS time doesn't dilate, UTC, TAI, zone times neither.

Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
>> September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Open this link:
>>> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
>>> see fig.8 page 11.

The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.
The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.

The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.

The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
This means that a line through all the data points would be very
much like a straight line. (small σ²)

From fig 8. we can see:

The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.

The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.

The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.

The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.

Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.

But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day

Conclusion:
>>> So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
>>
>> --
>> Paul

Richard's wise comments:

>
> What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
>
> These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
> how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
>
> You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
>
> Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
> and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
> information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
>
> Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.

One can but be impressed by Richard's lethal arguments!

Well done Richard! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
> >> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
> >> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
> >>
> >> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
> >> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
> >>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> >>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> >>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> >>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
> >> And why do you believe such garbage?
> >
> > Obviously facts,
> "Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
> are actually facts.
>
Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.

> > empirical observations
>
> Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
> > Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
> > the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
> > or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
> > Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
> > GR nonsense.
> True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
> can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
> possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.

Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get
with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
at different g is proof that time is changing.
That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to
changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time
rates due to relativistic effects.

> > So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
> > resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
> > is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
> gravitational force and potential is!

Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics. It’s
like saying that because one side of a coin looks different from the
other side...they must be two different coins.

But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system. As observed in GPS.
No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenon
called resonance.

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > > > > set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > > > Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > > > frequency (9192631774.1)
> > >
> > > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > > Isn't it sweet?
> > > That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> > > is doing with the brains of its victims.
> > GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> > document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> > the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>
> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.

Right, in Einstein 1905.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')

> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> wasnt even considered in 1915.

Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]

Jan

--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >> September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Open this link:
> >>> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
> >>> see fig.8 page 11.
> The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.
> The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
> at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
>
> The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
>
> The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
> line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
> the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
> This means that a line through all the data points would be very
> much like a straight line. (small σ²)
>
> From fig 8. we can see:
> The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
> The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
>
> The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
> ≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
>
> The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
> has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
>
> Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
> the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.
>
> But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day
>
> Conclusion:
> >>> So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> Richard's wise comments:
> >
> > What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
> >
> > These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
> > how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
> >
> > You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
> >
> > Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
> > and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
> > information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
> >
> > Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.
> One can but be impressed by Richard's lethal arguments!
>
> Well done Richard! :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

I warned you about your alarming rate of mental decline.
Now, I warn you that it's affecting your ability for text comprehension.
You failed miserably trying to understand the paper, in particular by introducing your fucking relativity at any cost.

The paper of these outsider leaches, even when are not relativity apologists, is part of the contest with other outsiders
on the topic of EXTRAPOLATING DATA from Galileo nav files, even when they admit:

"We used all available broadcast navigation data from the IGS consolidated navigation files".
........
"We found no documentation publicly available on how the navigation files are generated". (So, they INVENTED some data).
........
"First, the quality of the broadcast clock corrections is highly dependent on the update interval of the navigation data.
Under normal circumstances, the update interval varies between 10 and 80 min, and occasionally it goes up to
180 min. The update rates are much higher (i.e., updated more often) than the two hour in the case of GPS".
........
"First, the Galileo L10 satellites have been operating within the nominal orbital parameters.
The orbital inclination shows a clear positive trend with a mean rate of 0.249°/year.
The orbital repeat period indicates short, medium and long oscillation patterns at various
intervals (13.5-, 27-, 177- and 354-day). These periodic oscillations reflect the frequencies
associated with the satellite, Earth, Sun and Moon system".
......
"Finally, we would like to point out that our results are based on third party IGS
products. These products were obtained in general about two weeks after the end of the
previous month. We noticed that some of the broadcast consolidated files had been updated
over time. No data quality and/or other integrity checks have been carried out on the
Galileo navigation parameters retrieved from the consolidated navigation files. The same
applies for the reference precise orbits and clocks. Therefore, our results do not necessary
reflect issues related to the Galileo system and its performance."
........

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

They FABRICATED the different batches of datasets, in order to post-verify what kind of corrections were made.

Galileo satellites didn't have the DRIFT displayed on Figure 8. They CALCULATED the cumulative drift, by adding the
corrections performed by Earth Control Center along these years, BECAUSE (as it's stated at the beginning) the keplerian
orbit is drifting constantly from 55° inclination, which causes that A MAJOR PARAMETER (semi-major axis) continuously
changes, as well the orbital period. It doesn't matter that the values are within specs (56.7 ± 0.15° and 50680.7 ± 0.22 s.

STUDY Figure 4. Orbit inclination evolution of the Galileo L10 satellites from the beginning of the navigation data
transmission to December 2020: original values (left) and detrended values (right). [Unit: degrees].

*********

Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD. You need to see Einstein everywhere.

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:06:32 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > >> September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Open this link:
> > >>> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
> > >>> see fig.8 page 11.
> > The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.
> > The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
> > at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
> >
> > The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
> >
> > The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
> > line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
> > the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
> > This means that a line through all the data points would be very
> > much like a straight line. (small σ²)
> >
> > From fig 8. we can see:
> > The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
> > ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
> > That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
> > The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
> > ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
> > That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
> >
> > The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
> > ≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
> > That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
> >
> > The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
> > has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
> > That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
> >
> > Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
> > the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.
> >
> > But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day
> >
> > Conclusion:
> > >>> So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Paul
> > Richard's wise comments:
> > >
> > > What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
> > >
> > > These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
> > > how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
> > >
> > > You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
> > >
> > > Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
> > > and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
> > > information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
> > >
> > > Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.
> > One can but be impressed by Richard's lethal arguments!
> >
> > Well done Richard! :-D
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> I warned you about your alarming rate of mental decline.
> Now, I warn you that it's affecting your ability for text comprehension.
> You failed miserably trying to understand the paper, in particular by introducing your fucking relativity at any cost.
>
> The paper of these outsider leaches, even when are not relativity apologists, is part of the contest with other outsiders
> on the topic of EXTRAPOLATING DATA from Galileo nav files, even when they admit:
>
> "We used all available broadcast navigation data from the IGS consolidated navigation files".
> .......
> "We found no documentation publicly available on how the navigation files are generated". (So, they INVENTED some data).
> .......
> "First, the quality of the broadcast clock corrections is highly dependent on the update interval of the navigation data.
> Under normal circumstances, the update interval varies between 10 and 80 min, and occasionally it goes up to
> 180 min. The update rates are much higher (i.e., updated more often) than the two hour in the case of GPS".
> .......
> "First, the Galileo L10 satellites have been operating within the nominal orbital parameters.
> The orbital inclination shows a clear positive trend with a mean rate of 0.249°/year.
> The orbital repeat period indicates short, medium and long oscillation patterns at various
> intervals (13.5-, 27-, 177- and 354-day). These periodic oscillations reflect the frequencies
> associated with the satellite, Earth, Sun and Moon system".
> .....
> "Finally, we would like to point out that our results are based on third party IGS
> products. These products were obtained in general about two weeks after the end of the
> previous month. We noticed that some of the broadcast consolidated files had been updated
> over time. No data quality and/or other integrity checks have been carried out on the
> Galileo navigation parameters retrieved from the consolidated navigation files. The same
> applies for the reference precise orbits and clocks. Therefore, our results do not necessary
> reflect issues related to the Galileo system and its performance."
> .......
>
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
>
> They FABRICATED the different batches of datasets, in order to post-verify what kind of corrections were made.
>
> Galileo satellites didn't have the DRIFT displayed on Figure 8. They CALCULATED the cumulative drift, by adding the
> corrections performed by Earth Control Center along these years, BECAUSE (as it's stated at the beginning) the keplerian
> orbit is drifting constantly from 55° inclination, which causes that A MAJOR PARAMETER (semi-major axis) continuously
> changes, as well the orbital period. It doesn't matter that the values are within specs (56.7 ± 0.15° and 50680.7 ± 0.22 s.
>
> STUDY Figure 4. Orbit inclination evolution of the Galileo L10 satellites from the beginning of the navigation data
> transmission to December 2020: original values (left) and detrended values (right). [Unit: degrees].
>
> *********
>
> Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD. You need to see Einstein everywhere.

BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges

ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd

Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
of orbital parameters.

Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.

Let's see the stuff you're made of.

This may help you. Go to 5.1.3. Clock Correction Parameters

https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 20:25:56 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >> September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Open this link:
> >>> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
> >>> see fig.8 page 11.
> The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.
> The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
> at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
>
> The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
>
> The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
> line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
> the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
> This means that a line through all the data points would be very
> much like a straight line. (small σ²)
>
> From fig 8. we can see:
> The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
> The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
> ≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
>
> The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
> ≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
>
> The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
> has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
> That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
>
> Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10

Lie, trash, your "GR" correction is violating your Holiest Postulate,
your ISO idiocy and whole of your moronic religion.

On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>>>> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
>>>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
>>>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
>>>>
>>>> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
>>>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
>>>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
>>>>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
>>>>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
>>>>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
>>>> And why do you believe such garbage?
>>>
>>> Obviously facts,
>> "Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
>> are actually facts.
>>
> Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
> are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.
>
>>> empirical observations
>>
>> Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
>>> Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
>>> the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
>>> or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
>>> Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
>>> GR nonsense.
>> True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
>> can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
>> possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
>
> Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
> change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
> of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get
> with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
> The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
> effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
> at different g is proof that time is changing.
> That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to
> changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time
> rates due to relativistic effects.
>
>>> So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
>>> resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
>>> is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
>> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
>> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
>> gravitational force and potential is!
>
> Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.

That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity
cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
>
> But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
> when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
> (and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
> And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
> acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
> frequency of ANY classical resonant system.

Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
pendulum clock.

> As observed in GPS.

Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.

It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.

> No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenon
> called resonance.

Nope. It cannot be explained by normal gravitational force. This was
clearly demonstrated with the prototype GPS satellite when they switched
between "Newton Mode" and "Einstein Mode". Of course it worked only in
Einstein Mode. Relativity vindicated yet again!

On 9/20/2023 5:06 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
[]

> Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD.

Richard, you do realize that this sentence applies to yourself, not Paul.

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >>>> Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
> >>>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
> >>>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
> >>>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
> >>>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
> >>>>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
> >>>>> is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
> >>>>> refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
> >>>> And why do you believe such garbage?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously facts,
> >> "Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
> >> are actually facts.
> >>
> > Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
> > are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.
> >
> >>> empirical observations
> >>
> >> Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
> >>> Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
> >>> the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
> >>> or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
> >>> Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
> >>> GR nonsense.
> >> True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
> >> can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
> >> possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
> >
> > Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
> > change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
> > of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get
> > with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
> > The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
> > effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
> > at different g is proof that time is changing.
> > That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to
> > changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time
> > rates due to relativistic effects.
> >
> >>> So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
> >>> resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
> >>> is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
> >> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
> >> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
> >> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
> >> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
> >> gravitational force and potential is!
> >
> > Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
> That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
> it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity
> cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
> >
> > But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
> > when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
> > (and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
> > And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
> > acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
> > frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
> Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
> pendulum clock.
>
> > As observed in GPS.
>
> Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
> 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.

Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.

El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> >
> > Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
> > 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
> Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
> stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
> Just like all the Shit believers.
> P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
> not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.

Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.

"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >
> >>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >
> > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > Isn't it sweet?
> Exactly, to compensate for GR.

No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
>
> Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching
> train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's
> horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it to 9192631774.1 is an
>> > indirect way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>> > Isn't it sweet?
>> Exactly, to compensate for GR.
>
> No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.

no, fucking stupid. Clocks doesn't accumulate anything. Clocks are two
directions 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀. Accounting for 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆, which is
one direction only. You have 𝗻𝗼_𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 as 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆. You lying prick. At
your age, you are a liar. And a thief.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
> > > 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
> > Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
> > stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
> > Just like all the Shit believers.
> > P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
> > not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
>
> Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
>
> "Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency
> standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the
> second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the
> metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition
> between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of
> external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency,
> ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".

Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
for reasons of keeping up with tradition.
What is really defined is a frequency,
so in practical reality the basic unit is the Hertz, aka s^-1.

A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,

Jan

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
>
> > El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> > > On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
> > > > 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
> > > Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
> > > stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
> > > Just like all the Shit believers.
> > > P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
> > > not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
> >
> > Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
> >
> > "Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency
> > standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the
> > second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the
> > metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition
> > between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of
> > external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency,
> > ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
>
> Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
> for reasons of keeping up with tradition.
> What is really defined is a frequency,
> so in practical reality the basic unit is the Hertz, aka s^-1.
>
> A better way of saying the same would be:
> the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
> that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
> will be 9192631770 s^-1.
> This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
>
> Jan

Idiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!

What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:

If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase), THEN

A cesium clock that work at ground level (by definition) at 9192631770 Hz, HAS TO INCREASE it's frequency
by 4.104244661 Hz at 26500 Km high.

It's proportional to the increase in the XO oscillator, ASSUMING THAT GR IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE (IT IS).

Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.

Fucking retarded you all!