On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:

> thanks for the link, the picture of the fringes is very instructive, though I am surprised of such fringes obtained from incoherent white light spectrum,

Think of a soap bubble.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soap_bubble_performance_in_Marrickville.jpg

You can see colorful interference fringes, because even with white
light, the light reflecting off the near surface of the bubble is
strongly correlated with the light reflected off the far surface, i.e.
light which has been emitted only a few femtoseconds previous
(approx 3x10^-15 seconds).

On the other hand, you can't see interference fringes from light
reflecting off the two surfaces of a goldfish bowl because white
light reflecting off the near surface of the bowl shows practically
no correlations with light reflected off the far surface, i.e. light
which has been emitted approx 1.5x10^-11 seconds previous.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_shelter_of_fish.jpg

In the MMX, by keeping the arm lengths the same to within microns,
you are comparing light emitted from a white source with light
from the same source emitted a few femtoseconds previous.

It's all a matter of temporal coherence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)#Temporal_coherence

> let me ask, if you ever heard of an experiment about two clocks, one posit on the pole and one on the equator, and their eventual wobbling???, or any of the kind

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 23:21:16 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/12/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 20:46:49 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> >>> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> >>> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> >>> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
> >> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> >> but undetectable thing.
> >
> > An idiot said! An idiot can't be wrong!
> > The idiot's way is THE BEST WAY, and you're FORCED to it.
> > Remember.
> >
> At least you realize that you're the idiot here.
>
> Anyway, what about the invisible pink fairy theory?

Better than theory of a cat simultaneously dead and
alive, transforming into an ordinary cat when anyone
looks at it. Better also than the theory of 26 (or
something like that) dimensions, collapsed to
the size in which you can no way detect them,
neither by seeing nor otherwise.

And also better than theory that we're "FORCED
to synchronize them [the clocks] such that inertia
and space are isotropic", when ANYONE can check
that GPS crew has synchronized the clocks completely
differently.

beda pietanza <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 12 maggio 2021 alle 21:57:43 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
>>>> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
>>>> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
>>>
>>> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
>>> but undetectable thing.
>>>
>>> Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
>>> phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
>>> useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
>>> merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
>>> experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.
>>>
>>> Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
>>> should spend your time STUDYING.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>> Put a slightly different way, it is unscientific to make a hypothesis whose
>> correctness or existence cannot be verified through an experimental test.
>> It simply does not matter whether it feels intuitive or consistent with a
>> particular world-view or is less of a leap from a prior perspective. For
>> some people, a monotheist deity feels completely intuitive and is
>> consistent with their world view, but evidence for the deity consistently
>> lies beyond the edge — the so-called God of the Gaps. This is why such
>> hypotheses are compared to “invisible fairies who cover their footprints” —
>> there is functionally and philosophically no difference between such a
>> hypothesis and those fairies.
>>
>> The key here is that *subjective* appeal is inconsequential. The only thing
>> that is compelling in science is *objective* appeal, based on corroborated
>> evidence, which the scientific community agrees shall be considered
>> compelling enough to change people’s minds.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> beda
> the indirect evidence of the presence of the ether is still the best guess up to now,

That does not make sense.

> also, to explain the SR procedure itself:
> SR is conceived and uses the ether presence and its effects
> (fixing the local speed of light and the local speed of objects),
> resulting in rendering the
> ether itself superfluous:
> no ether no SR possible.
> the very Lorentz contraction, on which SR is based, takes place versus
> the ether interaction
>
> the empirical evidences as base of a theory is a greater error
> than basing a theory on a erroneous basis
> because errors can be corrected
> theoretic empiricism not
>
> cheers
> beda
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> beda
> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf

It is nonsense.

It is a well known fact that synchronous clocks on the geoid
will stay in sync. (UTC clocks, synchronous in the ECI-frame)

It is also a known fact that GR predicts this,
which the author Peter Lynch tries to prove.

But his 'proof' is wrong.

In the following:
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of Earth
c = speed of light
a = equatorial radius of the Earth
b = polar radius of the Earth
Ω = the angular velocity of the Earth

He writes:
The gravitational potential at the north pole is:
Φ_NP = -GM/b
The potential due to the apparent gravity at equator is:
Φ_EQ = - GM/a - Ω²a²/2

I quote:
"
Now let us assume that the Earth’s surface is isopotential
for apparent gravity, i.e., Φ_NP = Φ_EQ.
Then GM(1/b−1/a) = Ω²a²/2 (2)
"
He knows that that the clocks on the geoid stay in sync,
and then he _defines_ that equation (2) must be true!

But:
GM(1/b−1/a) = 12520 m²/s²
and
Ω²a²/2 = 108160 m²/s²

The latter 'potential' is more than 8 times greater
than the former ditto, and can obviously not be _defined_
to be equal.

The author then uses GR and calculates what is equivalent to
what we get from the Schwarzschild metric:
dτ₁/dτ₂ = √(1−2⋅GM/(c²a)−Ω²a²/c²)/√(1−2⋅GM/(c²b))
≈ (1−GM/(c²a)−Ω²a²/2c²)/(1−GM/(c²b))
≈ (1+(GM/c²)(1/b−1/a)−Ω²a²/2c²)
≈ 1 - 1.064e-12

Which is the ratio between the apparent rate of two clocks where:
Clock #1 is orbiting the mass M once a sidereal day,
at a distance a from the centre of M.
Clock #2 is stationary a distance b from the centre of M,
where M is a spherical mass with radius less than a and b.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In this case clock #1 would run slow relative to clock #2,
even if the the former clock is higher than the latter.
The higher speed would more than compensate for the altitude.

You can see from the equation above that if (2) had been
correct then dτ₁/dτ₂ = 1, which was Peter Lynch's point.

Bottom line:
Due to the oblateness of the Earth you can't use
the Schwarzschild metric on its usual form to calculate
the apparent rate of clocks on the surface of the Earth (geoid).

The gravitational potential is not GM/r but a more complex expression.
Se equation (13) in:
Neil Ashby: Relativity in the Global Positioning System
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 19:24:09 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> > beda
> > a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> > https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
> It is nonsense.
>
> It is a well known fact that synchronous clocks on the geoid
> will stay in sync. (UTC clocks, synchronous in the ECI-frame)

It is a well known by poor idiot Paul fact; unfortunately, inconsistent
with his beloved Shit and probably fabricated.

>
> It is also a known fact that GR predicts this,

It's an obvious lie, actually.

On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
>
> It is nonsense.

Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).

Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
prediction of GR, and SR has nothing to do with it. What Lynch calls "SR
and GR effects" are more properly known as "time dilation due to
relative motion" and "time dilation due to differences in gravitational
potential". While the first is predicted by SR, both are predicted by
GR. The separation he envisions works only in weak-field gravity.

[In olden days, calling those "SR and GR effects"
was common, albeit wrong. For instance, Hafele and
Keating called them that.]

BTW Lynch is not using the Schwarzschild metric, he is using the
Newtonian approximation to GR, without bothering to say so. He has
implicitly assumed a weak field.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> >> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> >> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
> >
> > It is nonsense.
> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
>
> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
> prediction of GR

What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?

On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
>>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
>>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
>>>
>>> It is nonsense.
>> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
>> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
>>
>> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
>> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
>> prediction of GR
>
> What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
>

He said 'geoid', fool.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 21:17:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> >>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> >>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
> >>>
> >>> It is nonsense.
> >> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
> >> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
> >>
> >> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
> >> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
> >> prediction of GR
> >
> > What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
> > rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
> >
> He said 'geoid', fool.

Yes, he did, fool. So, is his GR shit predicting such effect for any
rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?

On 5/13/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 21:17:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
>>>>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
>>>>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> It is nonsense.
>>>> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
>>>> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
>>>> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
>>>> prediction of GR
>>>
>>> What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
>>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
>>>
>> He said 'geoid', fool.
>
> Yes, he did, fool. So, is his GR shit predicting such effect for any
> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
>
You really do have a short attention span. He said 'geoid', which in
this context means an inertial earth-centered frame. Meaning it's
non-rotating. Of course you'll now run to a dictionary and whine that
that's not the definition there, or that in real life the earth is
rotating, bla bla bla. But the GPS does this as well, computes time and
position for a non-rotating geoid and then tacks on the rotation effects
at the end of its calculations.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 22:03:00 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/13/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 21:17:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> >>>>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> >>>>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is nonsense.
> >>>> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
> >>>> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
> >>>> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
> >>>> prediction of GR
> >>>
> >>> What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
> >>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
> >>>
> >> He said 'geoid', fool.
> >
> > Yes, he did, fool. So, is his GR shit predicting such effect for any
> > rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
> >
> You really do have a short attention span. He said 'geoid', which in
> this context means an inertial earth-centered frame.

Sorry, stupid Mike, no, "geoid" absolutely doesn't mean "frame",
neither inertial earth-centered nor any other; "geoid" is a kind
of shape, and earth geoid IS rotating; unless, of course, you don't
believe Copernicus.

And poor idiot Tom is mumbling without any contact with
either reality or even with his moronic physics. As usual.

On 5/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 22:03:00 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/13/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 21:17:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
>>>>>>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
>>>>>>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is nonsense.
>>>>>> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
>>>>>> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
>>>>>> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
>>>>>> prediction of GR
>>>>>
>>>>> What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
>>>>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
>>>>>
>>>> He said 'geoid', fool.
>>>
>>> Yes, he did, fool. So, is his GR shit predicting such effect for any
>>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
>>>
>> You really do have a short attention span. He said 'geoid', which in
>> this context means an inertial earth-centered frame.
>
> Sorry, stupid Mike, no, "geoid" absolutely doesn't mean "frame",
> neither inertial earth-centered nor any other; "geoid" is a kind
> of shape, and earth geoid IS rotating; unless, of course, you don't
> believe Copernicus.
>
Just as I said. You went whining for the dictionary definition, not that
used by physicists for this situation.
You are so predictable.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 22:24:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 22:03:00 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 21:17:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/13/2021 2:35 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:08:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/13/21 12:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Den 13.05.2021 00:24, skrev beda pietanza:
> >>>>>>>> a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
> >>>>>>>> https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is nonsense.
> >>>>>> Hmmm. Its basic conclusion is correct, but it is phrased incorrectly,
> >>>>>> and his "proof" is quite poor (as you said).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, any two clocks at rest on earth's geoid will remain in sync,
> >>>>>> including one at the pole and the other at the equator. But this is a
> >>>>>> prediction of GR
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What a bullshit. Is your GR predicting such effect for any
> >>>>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
> >>>>>
> >>>> He said 'geoid', fool.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, he did, fool. So, is his GR shit predicting such effect for any
> >>> rotating sphere or just especially for Earth?
> >>>
> >> You really do have a short attention span. He said 'geoid', which in
> >> this context means an inertial earth-centered frame.
> >
> > Sorry, stupid Mike, no, "geoid" absolutely doesn't mean "frame",
> > neither inertial earth-centered nor any other; "geoid" is a kind
> > of shape, and earth geoid IS rotating; unless, of course, you don't
> > believe Copernicus.
> >
> Just as I said.

No.

> You went whining for the dictionary definition, not that
> used by physicists for this situation.

Bullshit, stupid Mike, your moronic gurus don't have any
special definition of a "geoid". You're fabricating, as
expected from a fanatic idiot you are.

On 5/13/21 3:02 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> [I] said 'geoid', which in
> this context means an inertial earth-centered frame. Meaning it's
> non-rotating.

This is wrong. Earth's geoid is the surface of an oblate spheroid that
is everywhere the radius of mean sea level [#] and rotating with the
earth -- an equipotential surface in the weak-field Newtonian
approximation to GR. At any given location the "time dilation" due to
its rotation is exactly cancelled by its "time dilation" due to gravitation.

[#] In most locations on land the geoid is below
the surface, and is often unreachable.

> But the GPS does this as well, computes time and
> position for a non-rotating geoid and then tacks on the rotation effects
> at the end of its calculations.

Again not true. GPS time, like UTC, is defined for clocks at rest on
earth's geoid (i.e. rotating with the earth). Of course ground-based
clocks are not exactly on the geoid, so a correction for their altitude
is applied (which depends on latitude). These corrections are very much
smaller than the corrections applied to satellite clocks.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 03:26:28 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

s on the rotation effects
> > at the end of its calculations.
> Again not true. GPS time, like UTC, is defined for clocks at rest on
> earth's geoid (i.e. rotating with the earth).

See, stupid Mike?
And, Tom, according to your moronic Shit times for clocks
at rest on earth's geoid vary. Ever heard of the twins paradox?