Once again, the difference of 38.5 usec/day, but using digital counters.

Suppose that, while using three cesium atomic clocks. I put into the satellite
two of them, and the third is located at a give Earth station.

The master clock references (with an stability of 2.10E-12) are used in this
way. In the GPS satellite there are two clocks:

Fs1: 10.23000000000 Mhz
Fs2: 10.22999999543 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.00457 Hz from Fs1)

and, in the Earth station there is a third cesium atomic clock, from which
I derive a master reference:

Fe3: 10.23000000000 Mhz

The three of them are locked to cesium hyperfine transition that defines
the value of 1 second as international standard: 9,192,631,770 pulses per
second, as measured by a frequency meter with an H(passive) atomic
clock with a daily stability better than 10E-14.

The differences in frequency or time for both onboard clocks is almost the
same within 9 digits: 4,46725305E-10, so differences mount to
38.597 usec/day. So far, all the numbers used to discuss this problem are
the same as ever.

Now, I let clocks with Fs1 and Fs2 to drive counters Cs1 and Cs2 (controlled
with an hypothetical H(passive) atomic) for EXACTLY two years. After that:

Cs1 = 645226560000000 (exactly, stored in digital memory)
Cs2 = 645226559711761 (exactly, stored in digital memory)

ΔCs = 288,239 pulses (equivalent to a difference of 0.0281759 milliseconds)

On Earth station, by doing the same thing, Ce3 = Cs1, both counters fed with
the same 10.23000 Mhz reference (with stability ≈ 2.10E-12/year).

Now, Fs1 is used in the usual form to obtain carrier frequency 1575.42 Mhz,
used in L1 band, for civilian purposes, by multiplying Fs1 by 154.

NOW THE BIG QUESTION:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If L1 carrier, generated by 154 x Fs1, is received on Earth station and used to
feed a similar counter Ce3 for EXACTLY the same two years as in satellite,
which will be the value of Ce3?

If Ce3 = Cs1, then t = t'.

If Ce3 = Cs2, then t ≠ t', and 288,239 pulses are lost in two years.

The question is:

HOW COME a theory based on Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution for a very
simplified case of GR, and written by 1917 to explain Mercury's perihelion,
can be accounted for those 288,239 pulses lost in two years (2021)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How come a 1915 GR theory, which used only two parameters (c and the
Sun mass) can affect the behavior of atomic clocks, microwaves and
digital electronics?

Is that many of the relativistic physicists have lost their mind?

Do any RATIONAL PERSON can, today, believe that vacuum space can
be twisted so an anti-newtonian theory can be sucessful?

And NOTE that I didn't mention space-time, because it's NOT used in
the Hilbert-Schwarzschild metric applied to GPS nor it was used by
Einstein on his approximations for the calculation of Mercury's perihelion.

Ce3 = Cs1

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:38:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Do any RATIONAL PERSON can, today, believe that vacuum space can
> be twisted so an anti-newtonian theory can be sucessful?

Dick,

In the limit, GR reduces to Newtonian. You are just a crass ignorant. Keep up the entertainment.

On 9/8/2021 4:37 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once again, the difference of 38.5 usec/day, but using digital counters.
>
> Suppose that, while using three cesium atomic clocks. I put into the satellite
> two of them, and the third is located at a give Earth station.
....
> Cs1 = 645226560000000 (exactly, stored in digital memory)
> Cs2 = 645226559711761 (exactly, stored in digital memory)
>
> ΔCs = 288,239 pulses (equivalent to a difference of 0.0281759 milliseconds)

0.0281759 Seconds (or 28.1759 milliseconds if you prefer).

> NOW THE BIG QUESTION:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If L1 carrier, generated by 154 x Fs1, is received on Earth station and used to
> feed a similar counter Ce3 for EXACTLY the same two years as in satellite,
> which will be the value of Ce3?
>
> If Ce3 = Cs1, then t = t'.
>
> If Ce3 = Cs2, then t ≠ t', and 288,239 pulses are lost in two years.

By stating 288,239 pulses are "lost", you are assuming t = t'
implicitly, contradicting the t ≠ t' result.

In reality, t ≠ t', no pulses are "lost", but observers will disagree
when 2 years are up, by 28.1759 milliseconds.
>
> The question is:
>
> HOW COME a theory based on Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution for a very
> simplified case of GR, and written by 1917 to explain Mercury's perihelion,
> can be accounted for those 288,239 pulses lost in two years (2021)?

No pulses were lost. t ≠ t'.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How come a 1915 GR theory, which used only two parameters (c and the
> Sun mass) can affect the behavior of atomic clocks, microwaves and
> digital electronics?

The theory doesn't "affect" anything. We don't tell nature what to do.
Nature does what nature wants, which includes Mercury's perihelion,
the apparent behavior of moving atomic clocks and/or atomic clocks in
different gravitational potentials as determined by microwaves. (and the
Sun's mass is only relevant for Mercury's perihelion)
>
> Is that many of the relativistic physicists have lost their mind?

Since so far, no human contraption capable of transporting a person has
reached a substantial fraction of the speed of light, there are no
relativistic physicists, only nonrelativistic physicists. Unless you
count the very very slightly relativistic physicists on the ISS, none of
whom have lost their minds as far as I know.

> Do any RATIONAL PERSON can, today, believe that vacuum space can
> be twisted so an anti-newtonian theory can be sucessful?
>
Remember what Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory
is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong." If high precision experiments disagree with
theory, the theory is wrong, not the experiment. So Newton's
"beautiful" theory happens to be wrong. Of course there was no way for
him to know that.

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/8/2021 4:37 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Once again, the difference of 38.5 usec/day, but using digital counters..
> >
> > Suppose that, while using three cesium atomic clocks. I put into the satellite
> > two of them, and the third is located at a give Earth station.
> ...
> > Cs1 = 645226560000000 (exactly, stored in digital memory)
> > Cs2 = 645226559711761 (exactly, stored in digital memory)
> >
> > ΔCs = 288,239 pulses (equivalent to a difference of 0.0281759 milliseconds)
> 0.0281759 Seconds (or 28.1759 milliseconds if you prefer).
> > NOW THE BIG QUESTION:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > If L1 carrier, generated by 154 x Fs1, is received on Earth station and used to
> > feed a similar counter Ce3 for EXACTLY the same two years as in satellite,
> > which will be the value of Ce3?
> >
> > If Ce3 = Cs1, then t = t'.
> >
> > If Ce3 = Cs2, then t ≠ t', and 288,239 pulses are lost in two years.
> By stating 288,239 pulses are "lost", you are assuming t = t'
> implicitly, contradicting the t ≠ t' result.
>
> In reality, t ≠ t', no pulses are "lost", but observers will disagree
> when 2 years are up, by 28.1759 milliseconds.
> >
> > The question is:
> >
> > HOW COME a theory based on Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution for a very
> > simplified case of GR, and written by 1917 to explain Mercury's perihelion,
> > can be accounted for those 288,239 pulses lost in two years (2021)?
> No pulses were lost. t ≠ t'.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > How come a 1915 GR theory, which used only two parameters (c and the
> > Sun mass) can affect the behavior of atomic clocks, microwaves and
> > digital electronics?
> The theory doesn't "affect" anything. We don't tell nature what to do.
> Nature does what nature wants, which includes Mercury's perihelion,
> the apparent behavior of moving atomic clocks and/or atomic clocks in
> different gravitational potentials as determined by microwaves. (and the
> Sun's mass is only relevant for Mercury's perihelion)
> >
> > Is that many of the relativistic physicists have lost their mind?
> Since so far, no human contraption capable of transporting a person has
> reached a substantial fraction of the speed of light, there are no
> relativistic physicists, only nonrelativistic physicists. Unless you
> count the very very slightly relativistic physicists on the ISS, none of
> whom have lost their minds as far as I know.
> > Do any RATIONAL PERSON can, today, believe that vacuum space can
> > be twisted so an anti-newtonian theory can be sucessful?
> >
> Remember what Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory
> is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
> experiment, it's wrong." If high precision experiments disagree with
> theory, the theory is wrong, not the experiment. So Newton's
> "beautiful" theory happens to be wrong. Of course there was no way for
> him to know that.

Are you going to dispute any result generated by 70 years of development of digital (binary) electronics?
It's based on a language that the retarded didn't dream about, and it was Shannon who married Boolean
Logic with electronics, while working at the Bell Labs in the '40s.

Digital science says that, if the GPS people insist with their shit, then they have to explain how GR causes
that 288,239 pulses (digitally counted at a level of absolute perfection) HAVE TO DISSAPEAR in order to
satisfy a very simplified application of GR, using Schwarzschild metric.

I wonder how you are going to explain this "mystery" in order to save face for your iconic idol.

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I wonder how you are going to explain this "mystery" in order to save face for your iconic idol.

Dumbestfuck,

You sound more and more like Maciej. You two need to lay off the bottle.

On 9/8/2021 8:18 PM, Richard Hertz tarded:

> Are you going to dispute any result generated by 70 years of development of digital (binary) electronics?

Of course not, but that's not relevant here.

> Digital science says that, if the GPS people insist with their shit, then they have to explain how GR causes
> that 288,239 pulses (digitally counted at a level of absolute perfection) HAVE TO DISSAPEAR in order to
> satisfy a very simplified application of GR, using Schwarzschild metric.

No pulses "disappear". Remember, t' ≠ t. Earth's 2 years isn't the
satellite's 2 years.
>
> I wonder how you are going to explain this "mystery"

No mystery. t' ≠ t, no matter how much you (and Maciej) whimper about it.

> in order to save face for your iconic idol.

I don't have an "iconic idol". No Giant Guru, either, Maciej, err, I
mean Richard.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:24 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney babbled:

<snip bla bla bla>

Moroney, as it's my idea to analyze the OP topic, I put the rules.

I'll simplify my post with an idea, adjusting more the values I used:

Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:

F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)

And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:

Fs1 ≠ Fe3 and Fs1 = 10.2300000045674 Mhz
Fs2 = Fe3 =10.2300000000000 Mhz
ΔFs = 4,567400E-03 Hz (the same as in the OP, except two more digits)

Now, in a less expensive arrangement, I sample the two signals available at each clock with
32 bits ADC (it provides resolutions of 11 decimal digits). Then I digitally multiply both signals
(the equivalent of analog mixing of two sinewaves) and use a digital low pass filter (1 Hz) to
rescue the ΔFs component. With a digital signal of 4,567400E-03 Hz, I start to count pulses
in the DSP in charge of this experiment. I add the count of each pulse in a ΔCs word in the DSP.

Per day, an amount of 394 ± 1 pulses are counted, what represent a temporal difference between
38.416 μsec and 38.612 μsec.

Now, following the GPS procedure, I generate the L1 carrier signal by multplying Fs1 by 154.
I obtain an L1 MW carrier of 1,575,420,000.7033800 Hz.

The L1 carrier is received on ground station, regenerated and then divided by 154. I obtain a
base signal of 10.2300000045674 Mhz, which I sample as well the output of the Fe3 clock,
and repeat the procedure that was done at the GPS satellite.

The exact daily result, on ground, equals to the one at the GPS satellite: 394 ± 1 pulses per day.

This result puzzle scientists at ground station, because they launched a clock with
F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz, with zero differences between them.

And everything was done with the most accurate analog and digital techniques, using atomic clocks.

Then, someone jumps and say: It's the GR-Schwarzschild effect.

OK, but where in the world of GR the 394 ± 1 pulses per day were lost? It's the most advanced tech
what we have used here.

Where, in the path followed by exact devices, powered by ultra-stable H(passive) atomic clocks, plus
subordinate Cesium clocks, with a precision higher that 10E-14, those pulses were lost (or added)?

What is the rational explanation for this, without falling into metaphysics?

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 01:30:02 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> The theory doesn't "affect" anything.

It doesn't indeed, stupid Mike. Your idiot gurus try to
persuade us to some things we're allegedly FORCED
to, but we're ignoring them.

Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Moroney, as it's my idea to analyze the OP topic, I put the rules.

But you are not free to put the rules for how Nature works.
>
> I'll simplify my post with an idea, adjusting more the values I used:
>
> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
>
> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
>
> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:

That's where you go wrong.
The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.

Consider the following scenario:

We have two identical Cs atomic clocks who
transmit one pulse per second.
Both clocks are stationary relative the ground.
One clock is a distance h above the other,
h is so small (<100m) that we can consider
the gravitational acceleration g to be the same
on both clocks.
Both clocks count the pulses from the other clock,
all the transmitted pulses are counted.

We know that due to gravitational blue shift,
the lower clock will measure the pulse repetition
frequency of the received pulses to be (1 + gh/c²) Hz.

We know that due to gravitational red shift,
the upper clock will measure the pulse repetition
frequency of the received pulses to be (1 - gh/c²) Hz.

That means that when the lower clock shows
the proper time τₗ = N seconds, the upper clock
will show the proper time τᵤ = (1 + gh/c²) seconds.

And it means that when the upper clock shows
the proper time τᵤ= N seconds, the lower
clock will show the time τₗ = (1 - gh/c²) Hz.

How will you explain this?

Alternative #1:
---------------
The Cs atoms in the upper clock will somehow
feel that they are higher up than the Cs atoms
in the lower clock and therefore change
the frequency of the hyperfine transition to be
9192631770⋅(1 + gh/c²)Hz

Alternative #2:
---------------
The Cs atoms in the lower clock will somehow
feel that they are lower than the Cs atoms
in the upper clock and therefore change
the frequency of the hyperfine transition to be
9192631770⋅(1 - gh/c²)Hz

Alternative #3:
---------------
The whole thing is nonsense. There is no such
thing as gravitational frequency shift, all
the experiments below are faked, and the physicists
who made them are frauds.

https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
see pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

Alternative #4:
---------------
Nothing to explain.
Time is local and relative, not universal.
That two clocks who both run at their normal
rate measure different proper times between
two events is not self-contradictory.

Nature doesn't ask Richard Hertz how to behave.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 13:39:59 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > Moroney, as it's my idea to analyze the OP topic, I put the rules.
> But you are not free to put the rules for how Nature works.
> >
> > I'll simplify my post with an idea, adjusting more the values I used:
> >
> > Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
> >
> > F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> > F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
> >
> > And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
> That's where you go wrong.
> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.

The Shit says they don't. Measurements say they do.
Goodbye, The Shit.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:39:59 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip>

> > Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
> >
> > F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> > F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
> >
> > And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:

> That's where you go wrong.
> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.

Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.

Even when I understand, believe and know that relativity is an illusion that has}
poisoned physics for 115 years, I'm also a practical and adaptive person.

Here is an excerpt from the Global Positioning Systems Directorate:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
22 May 2018

1.1 Scope
This Interface Specification (IS) defines the characteristics of a signal transmitted from Global Positioning System (GPS)
satellites to navigation receivers on radio frequency (RF) link 1 (L1). While there are multiple signals broadcast within the
frequency band of L1, this IS defines only the signal denoted L1 Civil (L1C). Throughout this document, the L1 carrier
denotes 1575.42 MHz.
............
3 SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS
The requirements specified in this section define the requisite characteristics of the SS/US interface for the GPS L1C signal.
........
3.2.1.1 Frequency Plan

The carrier frequency for the L1C signal shall be coherently derived from a frequency source common with other
signals within the SV.

The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.

The SV carrier frequency and clock rates, as they would appear to an observer located in the SV, are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects.

The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, which is equivalent to a change in the L1C-code chipping rate
of 1.023 MHz by a Δf = -4.5674E-4 Hz. This results in an offset L1C-code chipping rate of 1.02299999954326 MHz.

The nominal carrier frequency (fo) - as it appears to an observer on the ground - shall be 1575.42 MHz.

The requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within a 30.69 MHz bandwidth centered
about the L1 nominal frequency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And those official values are what I used in my post about digital counting differences on clocks
on satellites and at ground stations.

So, until 3 years ago, the Global Positioning Systems Directorate published public standards about how
to detune atomic clock reference signals, prior lunch, to compensate for the Schwarzschild effect,
under whose very simplified theory, derived formulae are repeated over and over for more than 30 years,
under specs IS-GPS-800 (2003) and former denominations that can be traced back to 1989.

I repeat: For me, this is a facade with disinformation, to please physicists, academia and establishment,
avoiding eternal discussions and facilitating the flow of cash for the entire GPS Protectorate and the
complex multi-billion USD GPS infrastructure that is continuously being upgraded.

See how things work in the real world? Pure hypocrisy, bureaucracy, collusion and a powerful MIC
collecting money even from food stamps or modern equivalent.

Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:39:59 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
>>>
>>> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
>>> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
>>>
>>> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
>
>> That's where you go wrong.
>> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.
>
> Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.
>
> Even when I understand, believe and know that relativity is an illusion that has}
> poisoned physics for 115 years, I'm also a practical and adaptive person.
>
> Here is an excerpt from the Global Positioning Systems Directorate:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
> 22 May 2018
>
> 1.1 Scope
> This Interface Specification (IS) defines the characteristics of a signal transmitted from Global Positioning System (GPS)
> satellites to navigation receivers on radio frequency (RF) link 1 (L1). While there are multiple signals broadcast within the
> frequency band of L1, this IS defines only the signal denoted L1 Civil (L1C). Throughout this document, the L1 carrier
> denotes 1575.42 MHz.
> ...........
> 3 SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS
> The requirements specified in this section define the requisite characteristics of the SS/US interface for the GPS L1C signal.
> .......
> 3.2.1.1 Frequency Plan
>
> The carrier frequency for the L1C signal shall be coherently derived from a frequency source common with other
> signals within the SV.
>
> The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
>
> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates, as they would appear to an observer located in the SV, are offset
> to compensate for relativistic effects.
>
> The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, which is equivalent to a change in the L1C-code chipping rate
> of 1.023 MHz by a Δf = -4.5674E-4 Hz. This results in an offset L1C-code chipping rate of 1.02299999954326 MHz.
>
> The nominal carrier frequency (fo) - as it appears to an observer on the ground - shall be 1575.42 MHz.
>
> The requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within a 30.69 MHz bandwidth centered
> about the L1 nominal frequency.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And those official values are what I used in my post about digital counting differences on clocks
> on satellites and at ground stations.
>
> So, until 3 years ago, the Global Positioning Systems Directorate published public standards about how
> to detune atomic clock reference signals, prior lunch, to compensate for the Schwarzschild effect,
> under whose very simplified theory, derived formulae are repeated over and over for more than 30 years,
> under specs IS-GPS-800 (2003) and former denominations that can be traced back to 1989.
>
> I repeat: For me, this is a facade with disinformation, to please physicists, academia and establishment,
> avoiding eternal discussions and facilitating the flow of cash for the entire GPS Protectorate and the
> complex multi-billion USD GPS infrastructure that is continuously being upgraded.
>
> See how things work in the real world? Pure hypocrisy, bureaucracy, collusion and a powerful MIC
> collecting money even from food stamps or modern equivalent.

You are fuck*g insane.

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 21:11:50 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:

Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.

Of course he does; he is a physicist.

On 9/9/2021 12:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:24 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney babbled:
>
> <snip bla bla bla>
>
> Moroney, as it's my idea to analyze the OP topic, I put the rules.

And it's my reply. I make the rules.
>
> I'll simplify my post with an idea, adjusting more the values I used:
>
> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
>
> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)

"Detuned" is the wrong word.

> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
>
> Fs1 ≠ Fe3 and Fs1 = 10.2300000045674 Mhz
> Fs2 = Fe3 =10.2300000000000 Mhz

Not according to a satellite observer.

> ΔFs = 4,567400E-03 Hz (the same as in the OP, except two more digits)
>
> Now, in a less expensive arrangement, I sample the two signals available at each clock with
> 32 bits ADC (it provides resolutions of 11 decimal digits). Then I digitally multiply both signals
> (the equivalent of analog mixing of two sinewaves) and use a digital low pass filter (1 Hz) to
> rescue the ΔFs component. With a digital signal of 4,567400E-03 Hz, I start to count pulses
> in the DSP in charge of this experiment. I add the count of each pulse in a ΔCs word in the DSP.
>
> Per day, an amount of 394 ± 1 pulses are counted, what represent a temporal difference between
> 38.416 μsec and 38.612 μsec.

Which day? According to a satellite observer or someone monitoring from
the ground?
>
> Now, following the GPS procedure, I generate the L1 carrier signal by multplying Fs1 by 154.
> I obtain an L1 MW carrier of 1,575,420,000.7033800 Hz.

Nope. Learn what GR and SR state.
>
> The L1 carrier is received on ground station, regenerated and then divided by 154. I obtain a
> base signal of 10.2300000045674 Mhz,

This may be correct but not for the reason you think. Given the previous
mistake, I consider this wrong.

> This result puzzle scientists at ground station, because they launched a clock with
> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz, with zero differences between them.

The actual results won't confuse them if they know GR enough to
understand time dilation.
>
> And everything was done with the most accurate analog and digital techniques, using atomic clocks.
>
> Then, someone jumps and say: It's the GR-Schwarzschild effect.
>
> OK, but where in the world of GR the 394 ± 1 pulses per day were lost?

I already told you, no pulses were lost.

> It's the most advanced tech
> what we have used here.

And it validates GR. So the nice lady on your phone can correctly
direct you to the asylum where you should be.
>
> Where, in the path followed by exact devices, powered by ultra-stable H(passive) atomic clocks, plus
> subordinate Cesium clocks, with a precision higher that 10E-14, those pulses were lost (or added)?

Again, no pulses were lost or added.
>
> What is the rational explanation for this, without falling into metaphysics?

t' ≠ t.

On 9/9/2021 12:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 01:30:02 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> The theory doesn't "affect" anything.
>
> It doesn't indeed, stupid Mike. Your idiot gurus try to
> persuade us to some things we're allegedly FORCED
> to, but we're ignoring them.
>

"We", "us", drunk janitor? Are you so drunk that you're seeing double?

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:35:21 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > Where, in the path followed by exact devices, powered by ultra-stable H(passive) atomic clocks, plus
> > subordinate Cesium clocks, with a precision higher that 10E-14, those pulses were lost (or added)?

> Again, no pulses were lost or added.

Yes, they are there, somewhere. Explain it, if you can.

Moroney, I know that you're willing to defend your credence till the end. But I repeat what I've just answered
to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.

The master frequency of OCXOs are detuned (offset) prior to launch from to 10.2299999954326 Mhz
(detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from 10.30000000000 Mhz ).

Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz
between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz and
the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)?

********************************* COPY OF PART OF ANSWER TO PAUL **********************************

Here is an excerpt from the Global Positioning Systems Directorate:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
22 May 2018

1.1 Scope
This Interface Specification (IS) defines the characteristics of a signal transmitted from Global Positioning System (GPS)
satellites to navigation receivers on radio frequency (RF) link 1 (L1). While there are multiple signals broadcast within the
frequency band of L1, this IS defines only the signal denoted L1 Civil (L1C). Throughout this document, the L1 carrier
denotes 1575.42 MHz.
............
3 SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS
The requirements specified in this section define the requisite characteristics of the SS/US interface for the GPS L1C signal.
........
3.2.1.1 Frequency Plan

The carrier frequency for the L1C signal shall be coherently derived from a frequency source common with other
signals within the SV.

The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.

The SV carrier frequency and clock rates, as they would appear to an observer located in the SV, are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects.

The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, which is equivalent to a change in the L1C-code chipping rate
of 1.023 MHz by a Δf = -4.5674E-4 Hz. This results in an offset L1C-code chipping rate of 1.02299999954326 MHz.

The nominal carrier frequency (fo) - as it appears to an observer on the ground - shall be 1575.42 MHz.

The requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within a 30.69 MHz bandwidth centered
about the L1 nominal frequency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************************************************************

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>. But I repeat the imbecilities that I've just answered
> to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.
>

> Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz
> between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz and
> the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)?

Dick,
The sole purpose of setting the two clocks (sender vs. receiver) at different frequencies is for aligning the timestamp of the sender (satellite) with the time at the receiver, such the trilateral space equations for satellite location can be expressed in terms of the SAME time parameter. If you expended a fraction of your cretinoid effort used to "disprove" relativity by trying to LEARN relativity, you would be so much better off. But you are a nutter and your insanity is not curable.

On 9/9/2021 6:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:35:21 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> Where, in the path followed by exact devices, powered by ultra-stable H(passive) atomic clocks, plus
>>> subordinate Cesium clocks, with a precision higher that 10E-14, those pulses were lost (or added)?
>
>> Again, no pulses were lost or added.
>
> Yes, they are there, somewhere. Explain it, if you can.

t' ≠ t.
You are implicitly using the same time standard for the ground observer
and the SV. t' ≠ t means you can't do that.

> Moroney, I know that you're willing to defend your credence till the end. But I repeat what I've just answered
> to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.
>
> The master frequency of OCXOs are detuned (offset) prior to launch from to 10.2299999954326 Mhz
> (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from 10.30000000000 Mhz ).
>
> Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz

No pulses were lost.
Are you really as dumb and stoopid as Dono keeps saying you are?

> between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz

WRONG. The signal from space is received at 10.23 MHz, so a ground
clock being compared to it should be set to 10.23 MHz. Learn GR before
(trying to) criticize it.

> the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)?

Not quite exactly the same. When compared locally, one is at 10.23 MHz
the other at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
>
> ********************************* COPY OF PART OF ANSWER TO PAUL **********************************
>
> Here is an excerpt from the Global Positioning Systems Directorate:
>

I doubt you understood a word of it, even though it explicitly states
frequencies AND LOCATIONS where the frequencies are measured (on the
ground or in the SV). It also gives the reason for the offset, to
compensate for relativistic effects.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:12:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> t' ≠ t.
> You are implicitly using the same time standard for the ground observer and the SV. t' ≠ t means you can't do that.

> > Moroney, I know that you're willing to defend your credence till the end. But I repeat what I've just answered
> > to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.
> >
> > The master frequency of OCXOs are detuned (offset) prior to launch from to 10.2299999954326 Mhz
> > (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from 10.30000000000 Mhz ).
> >
> > Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz

> No pulses were lost.
> Are you really as dumb and stoopid as Dono keeps saying you are?

STRIKE 1, Moroney. I tried hardly to not disrespect you and hold a civilized discussion. Your comment is out of
place in this context. Calling named will not solve discrepancies and only brings this debate to a muddy place.

> > between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz

> WRONG. The signal from space is received at 10.23 MHz, so a ground clock being compared to it should be
set to 10.23 MHz. Learn GR before (trying to) criticize it.

STRIKE 2, Moroney. Your attack [Learn GR before (trying to) criticize it] is, again, out of place.
In my thought experiment, I said that I keep an exact copy of the clock at 10.2299999954326 MHz
that is launched and against it (through the received carrier, after post-processing it to bring down to Mhz region).
I specifically wrote that this test is to validate IF frequency changes as calculated, so using 10.230000 Mhz
doesn't pose any threat to the test of GR.

> > the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)
> Not quite exactly the same. When compared locally, one is at 10.23 MHz, the other at 10.2299999954326 MHz.

And that is what causes the lost count, 394 ± 1 pulses per day, which is what has to be explained without aggressions.

> > ********************************* COPY OF PART OF ANSWER TO PAUL **********************************
> >
> > Here is an excerpt from the Global Positioning Systems Directorate:

> I doubt you understood a word of it, even though it explicitly states frequencies AND LOCATIONS where the frequencies
are measured (on the ground or in the SV). It also gives the reason for the offset, to compensate for relativistic effects.

STRIKE 3, Moroney. I'm sorry that you can't behave. It seems that challenging relativity pull out a nasty part of you, which
I've seen hundred of times while browsing historic posts. Any derogatory comment about my intellectual capability only
makes me wonder what's wrong with the other person. It brought many satisfactions and rewards in my life, since childhood,
so I don't need any further acknowledgement, except my own.

What I don't tolerate is that anyone can walk away without any reaction from my part, usually very hurtful.

In this case, I don't see any reason to keep any further contact with you, as you are NOT a fair player on this game.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:51:30 PM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hertz persevered in his utter cretinism:

> I specifically wrote that this test is to validate IF frequency changes as calculated, so using 10.230000 Mhz
> doesn't pose any threat to the test of GR.
> > > the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)
> > Not quite exactly the same. When compared locally, one is at 10.23 MHz, the other at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
>
> And that is what causes the lost count, 394 ± 1 pulses per day, which is what has to be explained without aggressions.

Dick,

There is no such thing as "lost count, 394 ± 1 pulses per day". As explained many time to your thick skull, the reason the satellite clock is programmed at the 10.2299999954326 MHz is that the timestamps generated by the sender are received at exactly 10.223 Mhz by the ground receiver, as predicted by GR. You cannot disprove what you clearly do not understand. You are making this copiously obvious, utter imbecile.

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 23:38:53 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/9/2021 12:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 01:30:02 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> The theory doesn't "affect" anything.
> >
> > It doesn't indeed, stupid Mike. Your idiot gurus try to
> > persuade us to some things we're allegedly FORCED
> > to, but we're ignoring them.
> >
> "We", "us", drunk janitor? Are you so drunk that you're seeing double?

See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
ever had and you're just a fanatic religious crank. You can't
discuss against me, you can only bark and slander. And you
do.
And as for "us", anyone can check GPS and see that its staff
has ignored your ISO idiocy and Tom's screams that they
are FORCED.

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 00:31:51 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >. But I repeat the imbecilities that I've just answered
> > to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.
> >
> > Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz
> > between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz and
> > the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)?
> Dick,
> The sole purpose of setting the two clocks (sender vs. receiver) at different frequencies is for aligning the timestamp

Sorry, trash, but the measurement says otherwise.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had

https://shorturl.at/fxPS0

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 09:08:46 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 00:31:51 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > >. But I repeat the imbecilities that I've just answered
> > > to Paul, based on an official GPS 2018 spec: IS-GPS-800E.
> > >
> > > Where, in the entire GPS System, 394 ± 1 pulses per day are lost due to the difference of 4.567400E-03 Hz
> > > between a copy of s test clock that remains at the Earth station, oscillating at 10.2299999954326 Mhz and
> > > the other one sent to the space (an exact copy of the clock that remains on Earth)?
> > Dick,
> > The sole purpose of setting the two clocks (sender vs. receiver) at different frequencies is for aligning the timestamp
> Sorry, trash, but the measurement says otherwise.

See, poor halfbrain: a measurement of frequency is comparing this
frequency to a clock, and to a real, not to a gednaken by a brainwashed
halfbrain one. As we all know, the real clocks of GPS are corrected
comparing to your gedanken ones, so the outcome of the measurement
differs from your gedankens.

If your moronic Shit succeeded in their desperate trials of forbidding these
corrections and persuading us that we're FORCED to "proper" clocks - the
outcome of measurements would really match it. Couldn't happen, of
course; common sense was warning your idiot guru.