El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 19:22:01 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> 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!

The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!

The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
(which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).

Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
>
> The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
> (which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
>
> Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!

I dig you, Miguelito.

You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.

You contradict yourself, imbecile.

First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.

Second: You are shitting on your beloved relativity (even when you can't go further than Lorentz transforms), and forgot
that your pagan god Aleinstein instructed you about gravitational redshift of frequencies of electromagnetic energy.

This happens because you are a pretentious chilean, as well as a fucking idiot (FUBAR).

El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:05:14 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
> >
> > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
> > (which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
> >
> > Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!
> I dig you, Miguelito.
>
> You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
> and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
>
> You contradict yourself, imbecile.
>
> First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.

Of course you know shit about this. Carefully read the text in https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html#:~:text=Inside%20a%20cesium%20atomic%20clock,and%20change%20their%20energy%20state.

" When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.

It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.

A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.

The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".

Find another hobby. You are too dumb for discussing relativity!!!

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:05:14 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
> > >
> > > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
> > > (which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
> > >
> > > Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!
> > I dig you, Miguelito.
> >
> > You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
> > and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
> >
> > You contradict yourself, imbecile.
> >
> > First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.
> Of course you know shit about this. Carefully read the text in https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html#:~:text=Inside%20a%20cesium%20atomic%20clock,and%20change%20their%20energy%20state.
>
> " When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds..
>
> It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.
>
> Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.
>
> A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.
>
> The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".
>
> Find another hobby. You are too dumb for discussing relativity!!!

What you wrote is not about relativity, BUFAR imbecile.

It's about quantum physics and electronics (of which you know shit), and happens AT GROUND LEVEL.

Top FUBAR asshole. Go and get your prize.

El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:50:39 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:05:14 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
> > > >
> > > > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
> > > > (which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
> > > >
> > > > Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!
> > > I dig you, Miguelito.
> > >
> > > You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
> > > and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
> > >
> > > You contradict yourself, imbecile.
> > >
> > > First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.
> > Of course you know shit about this. Carefully read the text in https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html#:~:text=Inside%20a%20cesium%20atomic%20clock,and%20change%20their%20energy%20state.
> >
> > " When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.
> >
> > It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.
> >
> > Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.
> >
> > A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.
> >
> > The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".
> >
> > Find another hobby. You are too dumb for discussing relativity!!!
> What you wrote is not about relativity, BUFAR imbecile.
>
> It's about quantum physics and electronics (of which you know shit), and happens AT GROUND LEVEL.
>
> Top FUBAR asshole. Go and get your prize.

Wrong dumbestfuck. The Cs atomic clock works the same on the ground and in the satellite orbit (since the physics is the same locally). You know shit about relativity.

On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> 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:

Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
>
> 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),

That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.

> 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.

Nope. In fact, the satellite clock appears to run at a HIGHER frequency
than the ground clock, as observed on the ground. If it operated at
9192631770 Hz, it would be seen on earth as running too fast, the
lowering of frequency is to compensate for that GR effect.
>
> It's proportional to the increase in the XO oscillator, ASSUMING THAT GR IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE (IT IS).

No frequency is changed. It is set to a lower frequency before launch
and remains there.
>
> Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.

Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
>
>
> Fucking retarded

Good signature, Richard.

> you all!

You need to delete those stray words, of course.

On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> 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.

Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 14:58:24 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> 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.

Wrong, pedophile, assert how much you want, anyone can
check GPS, yes, they are. Even stupid Mike knows that.

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 23:43:38 UTC+2, 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,

And a communist is saids to be a humble servant of
working people. And in a gedankenwelt he can be,
but in the reality he isn't. And second isn't too.

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 00:49:03 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 19:22:01 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > 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!
> The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
>
> The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by

It's not 10.2299999954326, it's 10.23. Even if it really would
appear to someone - the measurement result is as it is.
Sorry, trash.

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 07:01:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >> 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:
> Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
> >
> > 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),
> That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
> was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.

An assertion is not any argument, stupid Mike.

> Nope. In fact, the satellite clock appears to run at a HIGHER frequency
> than the ground clock, as observed on the ground. If it operated at
> 9192631770 Hz

It would be proper according to the standards of your
moronic religion. But it wouldn't work:(. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.

> > Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.
> Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.

Your assertions have no value. Anyone can check,
no, it's not.

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> > > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > > > > > set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > > > > Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > > > > frequency (9192631774.1)
> > > >
> > > > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > > > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > > > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > > > Isn't it sweet?
> > > > That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> > > > is doing with the brains of its victims.
> > > GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> > > document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> > > the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> > to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> > Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> > by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> > wasnt even considered in 1915.
> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
> [snip bollocks]
>
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
the natural frequency of the stars atoms. In turn giving an apparent redshift
to the observer.
Incidentally contrary to common misunderstanding
among relativists and quantum theorists...spectral lines can all
be modelled as specific frequency harmonic emissions by atoms.
No need for the Bohr electron shell model. Especially considering it and it’s progeny
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.

> 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)

Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
Einstein was lucky. As with Marconi, nobody noticed he was stealing
other phenomena described by classical theory, and pretending
these classical effects were relativistic!

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, 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.

The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.

> >
> > 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.

I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock
are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths
surface. As predicted classically with resonance.
How would you disprove the classical resonance model?
It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.
All you have are observations on earth that show an increased
frequency due to altitude. There is no way to discern between the
change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.

> > 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!

Volney wrote:

> On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
>> different rates.
>
> Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?

ohh my butt, these 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_1969 lost 𝗮_𝗙-35_2023, asking the population to find out where it is!!

𝗨𝗦_‘𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀’_𝗙-35_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿
https://r%74.com/news/583116-f35-mishap-pilot-eject/
“If anyone has any information that may help locate the F-35, you are asked to call the Base Defense Operations Center,” the joint base officials wrote on X (formerly Twitter), adding that they are working with the Marine Corps and the Federal Aviation Administration to find the missing plane.

Just more over over priced and 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗴𝗲. And still the 𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 march in lockstep like so many lemmings.

Lol the united snakes flagship and 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗣𝗢𝗦 they have. Features 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗼𝘅. Lol junk

The aircraft is 𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲_𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘆, c𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 and now just zooming off by itself. They should have bought Russian.

𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻_𝗖𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗴𝗮𝘆_𝗢𝗯𝗮𝗺𝗮_‘𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗘𝗙_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗔𝗴𝗼’
https://thepeopl%65%73%76oice.tv/john-cusack-says-obama-sold-out-americans-to-the-wef-years-ago/

𝗙𝗮𝘂𝗰𝗶’𝘀_𝗕𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗠𝗮𝗻-𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀’_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲
https://thepeop%6c%65%73%76oice.tv/faucis-boasts-man-made-pandemics-are-good-for-the-elite/
In a newly resurfaced paper from 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci boasted that the global elite stand to benefit from a deadly man-made pandemic that will vastly depopulate the globe. Despite the risk of billions dying, […]

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗠𝗣_‘𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀’_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_$23_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁_
https://r%74.com/news/583329-polish-mp-bills-ukraine/

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗣𝗠
https://r%74.com/news/583320-poland-stops-weapons-ukraine/
How Zelensky the most despised creature on the planet is allowed fair passage to fly around the world ritually abusing everyone beggars belief

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_‘𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗮_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗮𝗻’_–_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_
https://r%74.com/news/583279-duda-ukraine-drowning-person/
Maybe so, but the Nazi loving and Russia hating Poles were not far behind. Poles get no respect from me whatsoever.

I wonder if Duda has finally made the connection to not follow Ukraine into war with Russia. Some people are slow learners.

How many pollocks does it take to tell 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 no

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

> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Woznia:
> > > > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > > > > > > set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > > > > > Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > > > > > frequency (9192631774.1)
> > > > >
> > > > > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > > > > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > > > > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > > > > Isn't it sweet?
> > > > > That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> > > > > is doing with the brains of its victims.
> > > > GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> > > > document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> > > > the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> > >
> > > Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was
> > > referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> > Right, in Einstein 1905.
> > (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> > > Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be
> > > effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating
> > > atom
> > > wasnt even considered in 1915.
> > Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> > and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> > of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
> > [snip bollocks]
> >
> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)

Einstein -did- predict that atomic spectral lines
originating from atoms near the surface of a massive star
would be red-shifted. (as observed later)
It was one of the three 'classic tests of GR'.
[snip nonsensical other explanations]
>
> > 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)
>
> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> it's mass. Without changing its altitude.

Of course. Pocket watches can, and need to be adjusted.
One can take a miniaturised atomic clock instead, nowadays.

> Einstein was lucky. As with Marconi, nobody noticed he was stealing
> other phenomena described by classical theory, and pretending
> these classical effects were relativistic!

Twin paradox and transverse Dopple shift are not classical effects.

Jan

On 9/22/2023 1:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 07:01:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>> 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:

>> Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.

Always.

>>> 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),

>> That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
>> was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.
>
> An assertion is not any argument, stupid Mike.

Wrong (as usual). Read the GR paper to learn why that is not an assertion.
>
>> Nope. In fact, the satellite clock appears to run at a HIGHER frequency
>> than the ground clock, as observed on the ground. If it operated at
>> 9192631770 Hz
>
> It would be proper according to the standards of your
> moronic religion. But it wouldn't work:(. Common sense
> was warning your idiot guru.

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

>> Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
>
> Your assertions have no value. Anyone can check,
> no, it's not.

That is the DEFINITION of the second, not an assertion, so once again
you are wrong.

Congratulations, Maciej, your streak of being "always wrong" remains
unbroken.

On 9/22/2023 6:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, 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:

>>>>> 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.
>
> The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
> like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
> little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.

You are desperate; grasping for straws. In this case you grabbed a
"resonance" straw. Resonances exist but have nothing to do with the
cause of GR effects seen.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock
> are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths
> surface. As predicted classically with resonance.

Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You
compare measured differences to see if they vary with gravitational
force or gravitational potential (something you don't even understand
what the difference is).

Also the first postulate points out the laws of physics are the same
everywhere. The result of that is that a Cs clock in high orbit will
tick at 9192631770 cycles per second, according to an astronaut orbiting
with it.

> How would you disprove the classical resonance model?

Classical resonances still exist; they won't be disproven. But they are
not the source of GR effects.

For one, a resonance affected by gravity is affected by the
gravitational force. GR effects are affected according to the
gravitational potential. You don't know the difference.

> It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.

No it doesn't. Again gravitational force vs. potential, they have
different predictions.

> All you have are observations on earth that show an increased
> frequency due to altitude.

Which exactly matches the GR predicted gravitational blueshift of a
signal in a gravitational field. (see Pound-Rebka)

> There is no way to discern between the
> change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.

And yet again, gravitational force vs. gravitational potential make
different predictions.

> That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
> classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.

Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>
>>> 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 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>
>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
>> [snip bollocks]
>>
> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)

That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.

> This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
> was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.

And varying with force, not potential.

> As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
> again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
> at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
> the natural frequency of the stars atoms.

Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.

> Incidentally contrary to common misunderstanding
> among relativists and quantum theorists...spectral lines can all
> be modelled as specific frequency harmonic emissions by atoms.

And...? We see the redshift from massive stars changes by potential so
it is not some force-related effect on resonances.

> No need for the Bohr electron shell model.

Obsolete long ago.

> Especially considering it and it’s progeny
> QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.

Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
>
>> 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)

Einstein was actually wrong there, because he didn't know of GR yet, nor
that the earth isn't a sphere. But Einstein corrected himself with GR.
>
> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.

And why is that relevant?

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:32:38 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/22/2023 1:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 07:01:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 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:
>
> >> Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
> Always.
> >>> 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),
>
> >> That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
> >> was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.
> >
> > An assertion is not any argument, stupid Mike.
> Wrong (as usual). Read the GR paper to learn why that is not an assertion..

An assertion that an assertion is not an assertion is not
any argument, stupid Mike.

> >> Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
> >
> > Your assertions have no value. Anyone can check,
> > no, it's not.
> That is the DEFINITION of the second

Is your second defined in Hz, stupid Mike?
Nbody cares anyway. See, stupid Mike, if
your idiot gurus defined shark as a grasseater
it wouldn't make sharks changing their menu,
you do understand that, right? The case
of their definition of second is similiar.
And the frequency is 9192631770 Hz.
on Earth, 9192631774 on a GPS satellite.
Good bye, The Shit.

On 9/22/2023 8:11 AM, Bernardo Bestuzhev Lada wrote:

> 𝗨𝗦_‘𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀’_𝗙-35_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿
> https://r%74.com/news/583116-f35-mishap-pilot-eject/
> “If anyone has any information that may help locate the F-35, you are asked to call the Base Defense Operations Center,” the joint base officials wrote on X (formerly Twitter), adding that they are working with the Marine Corps and the Federal Aviation Administration to find the missing plane.

Hahaha! The F-35 stealth ability is so good even the US has problems
finding it! Good luck to your evil empire (empire wannabe, that is) if
you ever find yourself on the wrong side of it!

Den 20.09.2023 23:06, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, 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.
>

Richard's arguments are lethal, as always:

> 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.
>

So unless Constantin-Octavian Andrei et al have faked the data
the Galileo SV-clocks are adjusted by the factor predicted by GR,
Δf/f = -4.7219E-10.

The data must be faked, then.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> 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
>

Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
yourself, since you ask me to help you?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> >> 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)
>
> Einstein was actually wrong there, because he didn't know of GR yet, nor
> that the earth isn't a sphere. But Einstein corrected himself with GR.

We have covered that several times already.
Of course Einstein knew that the Earth actually is an ellipsoid.
'Everyone' knew that, ever since Newton. (and Maupertuis)

And in Einstein 1905 he deliberately specified -a spherical Earth-
as an idealised model for the demonstration of time dilation.
And no, there is nothing wrong with Einstein 1905 about it,

Jan

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
> yourself, since you ask me to help you?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

So, you can't' explain the use of the relativistic correction ΔtF (also known as Δtr) by the end user terminal, for EACH GNSS satellite.

You can't run away from this and still pretend to be a know-it-all smart ass.

Volney wrote:

> On 9/22/2023 8:11 AM, Bernardo Bestuzhev Lada wrote:
>
>> 𝗨𝗦_‘𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀’_𝗙-35_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿
>> https://r%74.com/news/583116-f35-mishap-pilot-eject/
>> “If anyone has any information that may help locate the F-35, you are
>> asked to call the Base Defense Operations Center,” the joint base
>> officials wrote on X (formerly Twitter), adding that they are working
>> with the Marine Corps and the Federal Aviation Administration to find
>> the missing plane.
>
> Hahaha! The F-35 stealth ability is so good even the US has problems
> finding it!

stealth my ass, which explains why 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗽𝗶𝗱_𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 in the first place.
And 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_1969. You have to be very stupid to fly
𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁. Not even the khazar goy 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮 wants it. Here's some
explanatory data. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 from the manufacturers. Amazing.

𝗠𝗜𝗚21,_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿_1980,_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗵_2.6

𝗙35,_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿_2023-2030,_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗵_1.6