On 9/9/2021 11:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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.

You are responding with a real attitude, a "I'm right and you don't know
better" attitude. Whether you really ARE stupid or just
>
>>> 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.

If set at 10.2299999954326 MHz to compare to the received frequency OK,
but there was much more than that that shows you don't understand it.
Which is why I said to learn it first. It is not an attack, that (learn
X before criticizing X) applies everywhere.

>>> 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.

You insist on "pulses being lost" after I told you several times that
doesn't happen. Which is why I said to learn GR. If you said something
like I don't understand why it appears pulses are lost it would work out
better, but once again your enormous ego got in the way.
>
>
>>> ********************************* 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.

Again, the statement from the document was pretty clear what is
happening and explicitly stating what would happen where, and it really
does appear you simply don't understand it. Again your inflated ego got
in the way and you refuse to accept that you don't understand it,
attacking me instead. And I stand by stating that you didn't understand
what was quoted.
>
> What I don't tolerate is that anyone can walk away without any reaction from my part, usually very hurtful.

I personally look down on overinflated egos like what you show,
especially when it interferes with your understanding. Lots of that in
this group and similar ones.
>
> 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.
>

Waah! Waaahhh! That mean Moroney hurt my ego! Waah!!!

Den 10.09.2021 22:12, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 10.09.2021 17:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 9:25:35 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> We have an oscillator with frequency 10 GHz
>>>> on the top of a 100 m high tower. The frequency
>>>> is transmitted by a radio sender.
>>>>
>>>> At the bottom of the tower there is a frequency
>>>> counter which will count the cycles from
>>>> the clock in the tower.
>>>>
>>>> Q1:
>>>> How many cycles will be received on the ground during
>>>> 1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?
>>>>
>>>> Q2:
>>>> Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
>>>> what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
>>>> shows 1000000 seconds?
>>>> (Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense
>>>> together with the empirical fact that the signal from the clock
>>>> in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.
>>>> f_ground/f_tower ≈ (1 + gh/c²) ≈ (1 + 1.1E-14)
>>>>
>>>> This should be a simple problem, so please answer the questions.
>>>>
>>>> Or will you flee the challenge?
>
> I'm not fleeing the challenge. I just told you that your premises force me to accept gravitational blue shift,
> which is very childish coming from you. I don't accept those premises to follow your deceiving problem.

So you don't accept that gravitational blue shift is
an empirical fact?

But whether you like it or not, it is.

I understand that you never will try to answer
the questions, so I will have to do it myself.

Q1:
How many cycles will be received on the ground during
1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?

A1:
Since the clock in the tower emits the frequency 10 GHz
and the received signal is blue shifted, the number
of received pulses N is:
N = 10⋅10⁹⋅1000000⋅(1 + 1.1⋅10⁻¹⁴) = 1.000000000000011⋅10¹⁶= 10¹⁶+110
and the frequency of the received signal is: fₗ = fₕ⋅(1 + 1.1⋅10⁻¹⁴)
fₗ = 10000000000.00011 Hz or 10 GHz + 0.00011 Hz

Q2:
Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
shows 1000000 seconds?
(Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)

A2:
Since all the transmitted pulses are received on the ground,
the number of emitted pulses is: N = 10¹⁶+110
Since the frequency of the clock is 10 GHz the clock
will show: τₕ = (10¹⁶+110)/10⋅10⁹ s = 1000000 s + 11 ns

This means that while the clock on the ground has advanced
τₗ = 1000000 s, the clock in the tower has advanced
τₕ = 1000000 s + 11 ns.

But note: the clock in the tower do NOT run faster
that the clock on the ground. The clock on the ground
receives a signal with the frequency 10GHz+0.00011Hz
BECAUSE the clock in the tower emits the frequency 10GHz.

If the clock in the tower had run faster, the frequency
would be higher, and the frequency of the signal on
the ground would be higher still, and ....

This scenario illustrates that 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.

But we may say that the clock in the tower
observed from the ground appears to run faster
that clock on the ground.

And even people that know SR and GR well, myself included,
may say that the rate of the clock in the tower is
higher than the clock on the ground.

But that's only sloppy language, it isn't meant literally,
and knowledgable people will know that.

But persons with a poor knowledge of SR and GR will always
misunderstand it an believe that it means that the clock
is physically changed. Which is ridiculous.

An observer's position or state of motion can't affect
the observed object.
But they can affect the observer's observations of the object.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 11.09.2021 00:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Please, explain the outcome of the Hafele–Keating experiment.

https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

Another example showing that 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.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

After a little bit of research in my files, I found the root of all evils in GR concerning gravitational time dilation.

I have a list of 269 papers and articles with Einstein as: author, revisionist of other's papers or host in different interviews.
They cover from 1901 to 1955, and the first paper where he started dealing with the influence of gravitational fields
in nature is:

1911 - On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 35, 898–908, link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.2791.pdf

Here, Einstein proposed that light velocity was affected by newtonian gravitational fields:

c = c₀ . (1 + Φ/c²) , where c₀ is the value at the origin of the coordinates.

In February 1912 Abraham published a correction to his paper, which originated a heated discussion between both.
In the same month, Einstein sent to Wien his new paper, correcting concepts from his 1911 paper. On March 11, 1912
Einstein wrote Wien again and asked him to return him back and not publish the manuscript.
He found that it was incorrect and worked on a new version, introducing a non-linear field equation in the theory of
the static gravitational field. On March 20, 1912, Einstein submitted his new paper to Wien (Annalen der Physik),
which was published as:
1912 - On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 38, 443–458

In section §3 Einstein reformulated his findings from his 1911 Annalen paper considering the time,

"If we measure time in S1 [lower gravitational potential] with a clock U, we must measure the time in S2
[higher gravitational potential] with a clock that goes 1 + Φ/c² slower than the clock U if you compare
it with the clock U in the same place".

And this is when the idea of gravity bending time started, until these days:

Being Φ(R) = - G.Me/R (Newton's gravitational potential, with R as distance from point-like mass)

F(S2) = F(S1) . (1 + Φ(R)/c²) = F(S1) . [1 - G.Me/(R₂..c²)] ----------------- Gravitational blue shifting (born in 1912)

T(S2) = T(S1) / (1 + Φ(R)/c²) = T(S1) / [1 - G.Me/(R₂..c²)] --------------- Gravitational time slowing (born in 1912)

When R₂(S2) = R₁(S1), then both clocks run at an equal frequency.

*****************************************************************************

Assuming that, being F₀ a fundamental frequency, it is that

F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)]
F(S2) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)]

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1)

For R₁ = 6,378,136 mt and R₂ = 26,936,715 mt, it gives

F(S1) = 0.999999999835354 . F₀

F(S2) = 0.999999999304651 . F₀

and

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = 5,307E-10 . F₀

Example for F₀ = 1 Ghz (exactly)

F(S1) = 999,999,999.30465 Hz

F(S2) = 999,999,999.83535 Hz

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = 0.5307024 Hz

*****************************************************************************

Now, this formulae were conceived 109 years ago by Einstein and friends. By 1911, he had introduced
his modifications in a coordinates transform, by assuming that x transform included c and t² in the
Minkowski space-time:

ξ = x + a.(cₒ + a.x).t²/2, η = y, ζ = z, τ = ct

obtaining:

∇c = κcρ (Laplacian, 1911)

and changing to:

∇c = κc²ρ (Laplacian, 1912)

Then (and being related to his beloved E = mc²), he managed somehow to introduce his fucking c² everywhere,
like gravitational blue shifting and the rest of the shitty GR.

But nobody (physicists) did complain, nor they do now.

And THIS stupid, abstract assertion is what rules GPS and modern cosmology through GR?

I can't believe this. MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS, and Einstein was anything except a genius.

Remember: March 1912 and the fucker anticipated how time flows (according to GPS Directoriate) by 65 years!

Where are the "alleged" 394 ± 1 pulses per day that are missing?

Ask whose endorse the 1912 paper, not the 1915 General Relativity.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> After a little bit of research in my files, I found the root of all evils in GR concerning gravitational time dilation.
<snip ranting>

Dick,

There are no "missing pulses", as explained. The fact that you are an imbecile cannot be helped, you were born this way. The fact that you are odious, is a different matter, you became this way. Keep frothing at the mouth, keep up the entertainment, pathetic clown.

Correcting a mistake in my previous post:

Assuming that, being F₀ a fundamental frequency, it is that

F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)]
F(S2) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)]
ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1)

For R₁ = 6,378,136 mt and R₂ = 26,936,715 mt (distances for GPS), it gives

F(S1) = 0.999999999304651 . F₀
F(S2) = 0.999999999835354 . F₀ (Previous error: the coefficients were inverted)

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = 5,307E-10 . F₀ (value currently used for gravitational effect, almost everywhere)

Example for F₀ = 1 Ghz (exactly)

F(S1) = 999,999,999.30465 Hz
F(S2) = 999,999,999.83535 Hz

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = 0.5307024 Hz

In the case of GPS,

F(S1) = 10,229,999.99543 Hz
F(S2) = 10,230,000.00000 Hz

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = 0.0045674 Hz

*****************************************************************************

Now, this formulae were conceived 109 years ago by Einstein and friends. By 1911, he had introduced
his modifications in a coordinates transform, by assuming that x transform included c and t² in the
Minkowski space-time:

ξ = x + a.(cₒ + a.x).t²/2, η = y, ζ = z, τ = ct

obtaining:

∇c = κcρ (Laplacian, 1911)

and changing to:

∇c = κc²ρ (Laplacian, 1912)

Then (and being related to his beloved E = mc²), he managed somehow to introduce his fucking c² everywhere,
like gravitational blue shifting and the rest of the shitty GR.

<snip>

A more "expressive" expression:

Assuming that, being F₀ a fundamental frequency, it is that

F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)]
F(S2) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)]

ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)] - F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)] = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (-1/R₂ + 1/R₁)

ΔF = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (R₂ -- R₁)/(R₂.R₁)

GPS uses R₁ = 6,378,136 mt and R₂ = 26,936,715 mt

But, if R₁ --> 0, ΔF --> ∞

Can anyone see how insane is this proposal? How unreal?

And was written in March 1912 by Einstein, on his first steps toward GR (three and a half years ahead).

He invested the next 43 months finding help from anyone who could write a mathematical expression
that could relate matter-energy to to a curvature of the space, time.

GR is an artificial mathematical construct (very complex and non-linear indeed) that could provide
NUMERICAL results for:

1) The explanation of Mercury's perihelion.
2) The bending of light beams due to space curvature around massive objects (like the Sun).
3) An invented red-shifting effect of light that pass by massive celestial objects.

And, thanks to Hilbert, he did achieve such set of equations. And almost every physicist still celebrates it today.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:40:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Correcting a mistake in my previous post:

Dick,

What makes you into an odious imbecile is your pathetic attempt at disproving GR by ...using GR (in a way that clearly showcases that you have no clue). Keep it up, keep up the entertainment,. clown!

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 5:17:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:

> But, if R₁ --> 0, ΔF --> ∞
>
> Can anyone see how insane is this proposal? How unreal?

Absolutely, you ARE insane. R₁ --> 0 cannot happen. Take your meds.

I have had this link since 2019. It's from ResearchGate, and has 122 posts dealing the main topic
until the thread is derailed to other topics on relativity. Not the brightest thread at the site, but it
serves as an example of controversies around GPS and relativity, in particular the myth of
11Km/day error if GR is not considered.

How much, and how, does a Global Positioning System (GPS) depend on relativity theories?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories

This is the OP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kåre Olaussen asked 7th Feb, 2018:

On the web, including ResearchGate blogs, opinions on this question vary from statements that the GPS disproves
relativity theories to claims that your GPS would be off target by about 11 km after one day if relativity theories were
not accounted for.
In my opinion, both statements are very wrong. In my opinion, it is most serious that the second myth is propagated
by highly respected scientists popularising relativity theories. Because they are expected to know what they are talking
about (with such authority). Which is not the case in my opinion. Because there is a difference between elementary
calculations in relativity theories, and the implications of such calculations on practical GPS position determinations.

Added May 17, 2018.

I don't dispute that uncorrected GPS clocks ticks 38 μs too fast per day, as described by observers on the Earth's surface
(ECEF frame), and that light travels 11.4 km in vacuum in 38 μs. However, it is quite a bit simplistic to immediately interpret
the latter as a position error. Modulo small corrections, time t and position r can be determined from time-position data
received from 4 satellites

c².(t - ti²j)² = |r - rj|², j=1,..,4

If all satellite clocks tick too fast, at the same rate, the calculated time t would accumulate this error, but the position r
would be unaffected. So, it does not matter at all if the clocks tick too fast, right? Not quite. To determine their positions
rj, the satellites must check what time it is. So, any time error will result in a position error. But the multiplication factor
is no longer the speed of light, 300 000 km/s, but the much lower speed of the satellite, ≈ 4 km/s. Finally, it is a bit
unrealistic to think that all satellite clocks are off with exactly the same amount, because they would in practise by
synchronised with the Earth-bound standard at different times. Due to this there would be some additional time error,
but that would not be an accumulating error.

Finally, in practical implementations, some GPS receivers may employ an algorithm which uses its local time for the
first position estimate. I am not sure this is a recommendable procedure. Which anyway is based on the fact that the
satellite clocks run with corrected rates. If they were not, other algorithms would be used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an excerpt of a post for which I feel some affinity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Malek, 9th Feb, 2018

Did you ask yourself why, as you admiringly said, ["In my opinion, it is most serious that the second myth: "GPS would be
off target by about 11 km after one day if relativity theories were not accounted for." is propagated by highly respected
scientists popularising relativity theories. .......], this “myth” is perpetuated?

This has been the culture and practice of “New Physics” since Arthur Eddington’s claim of the bending of star light by
the sun and it continuous unabated till today. The fact is that the theories of relativity has been adopted as the ruling
idea (gospels) by the “power that be”, because it is better than those of the discredited theology.
............
Einstein’s “mathematical idealism”, totally by-passing “objective reality” altogether, offered a better alternative to Kant’s
“subjective idealism” because mathematics has a priori validity and hence “totally objective” and for that reason must
have ”scientific” validity as well. So now, instead of the “unscientific” and philosophical “subjective idealism” of Kant,
the world and objective reality must conform to the “scientific” and “objective” mathematical idealism of Einstein!

The most “logical” and "scientific" inference then, is that Einstein’s theories of relativity must correctly reflect the material
world and the objective reality. The task of physics (like theology) therefore, is to interpret and reveal the workings of the
truth of the theories of relativity in the details of the world and Nature.
..............
So, the simple career opportunity (certainly, in terms of fame, fortune and funds) for any ambitious physicist is to find
objects and phenomena in the world and Nature, where the theories of relativity happen to be valid. Little colouring,
omission of few data points, little contrived extrapolation, a little artificial exaggeration of peaks above the background
etc. etc., are of little importance. The theory must be right anyway and everybody will look at it this way and would not
mind the “tiny” manipulations. Certainly, the stake is high and worth any risk! Moreover the theories of relativity are
ambiguous enough to allow a range of interpretation to justify any subjective conclusion. Also, the contrary views would
be immediate rejected with possible sanctions! This is the modus operandi of modern physics.
..............
I reject the theories of relativity and their “interpretation and revelation” of things and phenomena in Nature, in their totality
and without further considerations, for the following three reasons, among more others:

1. These theories describe an ideal world and do not necessarily have validity for the real world. But I recognize the fact that
these theories have enough intellectual (like Kant’s antimonies) and artistic material and quality that can occupy any honest,
aspiring but naïve scientists in endless and meaningless abstraction, interpretation, deductions etc (as we see even in RG
forums), like geometry did to the early Greeks.

2. “Spacetime”- an abstract geometrical manifold with purported tangible mechanical/physical/material attributes is a false
fabrication of human mind & mathematics and certainly not the basis of objective reality from dialectical and/or any other
philosophical perspectives; including that of Kant. And hence the theories based on this premise has absolutely no merit for
natural science.
................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is a blatant lie, based on pure and unmitigated ignorance:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issam Mohanna, 11th Feb, 2018

Kåre Olaussen
Unlike mechanical grandfather clocks where a pendulum oscillates between two turning points, in a GPS satellite's clock,
cesium or rubidium atoms and their electrons oscillate between two different energy states emitting or absorbing photons.

Taking into account that the speed of light is the same in the (instantaneous) inertial frames of both the GPS satellite and
the GPS receiver, the 38 microseconds per day measured by the GPS Earth user is the time taken by light or photons
emitted or absorbed by electrons or atoms to travel 38 microseconds x light speed or approximately 11 km per day.

When a signal is emitted from a satellite, it carries encoded with it *****information about the precise time and position*****
at which it was emitted.

Since *******every electromagnetic signal can show time as well as position*******, the GPS Earth user will get ,at the
end of one day, a time signal showing a position signal, which is in error by about 11 km from the Earth user's required position.
......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate about relativity or not is everywhere on the web.

I regret that most of the available information is bla, bla, bla (either accepting or rejecting relativity).

But only a very few sites deal with the ACTUAL operation of a GPS receiver, how the calculations are performed and how
and how often the GPS receiver is updated with corrections to the GPS time, locally reproduced and stored into their memory.

Maybe one of these days I'll post how calculations are done at the receiver.. They have some difficulties to be post, due to
the uses of matrices and lengthy and complex algorithms.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 20:03:04 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Anyway, gravitational time dilation has been demonstrated both by the
> experiment you reference and by Pound-Rebka, Gravity Probe A and others.

Bullshit. Anyone can check GPS, time (as defined by your idiot guru
himself) doesn't dilate.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 22:03:07 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>
> I understand that you never will try to answer
> the questions, so I will have to do it myself.
> Q1:
> How many cycles will be received on the ground during
> 1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?
> A1:
> Since the clock in the tower emits the frequency 10 GHz
> and the received signal is blue shifted, the number
> of received pulses N is:
> N = 10⋅10⁹⋅1000000⋅(1 + 1.1⋅10⁻¹⁴) = 1.000000000000011⋅10¹⁶= 10¹⁶+110
> and the frequency of the received signal is: fₗ = fₕ⋅(1 + 1.1⋅10⁻¹⁴)
> fₗ = 10000000000.00011 Hz or 10 GHz + 0.00011 Hz
> Q2:
> Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
> what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
> shows 1000000 seconds?
> (Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)
> A2:
> Since all the transmitted pulses are received on the ground,
> the number of emitted pulses is: N = 10¹⁶+110
> Since the frequency of the clock is 10 GHz the clock
> will show: τₕ = (10¹⁶+110)/10⋅10⁹ s = 1000000 s + 11 ns

In the dreams of a brainwashed fanatic idiot. Not in the
reality of TAI, GPS, UTC clocks.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 22:14:43 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.09.2021 00:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > Please, explain the outcome of the Hafele–Keating experiment.
> https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
>
> Another example showing that time is local and relative,
> not universal. That two clocks who both run at their normal
> rate measure different proper times

Your "proper time" delusion may be relative, indeed. Time,
as defined by your idiot guru himself, is not.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 23:47:55 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> > After a little bit of research in my files, I found the root of all evils in GR concerning gravitational time dilation.
> <snip ranting>
>
> Dick,
>
> There are no "missing pulses", as explained. The fact that you are an imbecile cannot be helped, you were born this way. The fact that you are odious, is a different matter, you became this way. Keep frothing at the mouth, keep up the entertainment, pathetic clown.

Keep raving and spitting, poor trash; that won't change
the fact that GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like
any serious clocks always did.

Den 12.09.2021 02:17, skrev Richard Hertz:
> A more "expressive" expression:
>
> Assuming that, being F₀ a fundamental frequency, it is that
>
> F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)]
> F(S2) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)]
>
> ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)] - F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)] = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (-1/R₂ + 1/R₁)
>
>
> ΔF = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (R₂ -- R₁)/(R₂.R₁)
>
> GPS uses R₁ = 6,378,136 mt and R₂ = 26,936,715 mt
>
> But, if R₁ --> 0, ΔF --> ∞
>
> Can anyone see how insane is this proposal? How unreal?
>
R₁ can not be smaller than the radius of the body with mass Me.
So when R₁ --> 0, the radius of the body with mass Me (Earth) --> 0,
the density of the body --> ∞. We have a singularity.

Your proposal is indeed insane, so why did you propose it?

Did you not understand that it was insane to expect a finite
result when you let the radius of the Earth --> 0 while
its mass remains constant?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 4:21:55 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> > Assuming that, being F₀ a fundamental frequency, it is that

> > F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)]
> > F(S2) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)]
> > ΔF = F(S2) - F(S1) = F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₂.c²)] - F₀ . [1 - G.Me/(R₁.c²)] = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (-1/R₂ + 1/R₁)

> > ΔF = F₀ . G.Me/c² . (R₂ -- R₁)/(R₂.R₁)
> > GPS uses R₁ = 6,378,136 mt and R₂ = 26,936,715 mt
> > But, if R₁ --> 0, ΔF --> ∞
> > Can anyone see how insane is this proposal? How unreal?

> R₁ can not be smaller than the radius of the body with mass Me. So when R₁ --> 0, the radius of the body
> with mass Me (Earth) --> 0, the density of the body --> ∞. We have a singularity.

> Your proposal is indeed insane, so why did you propose it?
> Did you not understand that it was insane to expect a finite result when you let the radius of the Earth --> 0 while
> its mass remains constant?

Paul, maybe I was tired and didn't want to write a much longer post repeating the concepts about HOW I did find
when Einstein started to settle the basis of his new line of thought, back in 1911, when he wanted to left behind
fundamental concepts of Newton's theories.

Now, to explain why I did post the above derivations, I have to repeat part of my previous post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first paper where he started dealing with the influence of gravitational fields in nature is:

1911 - On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 35, 898–908

Here, Einstein proposed that LIGHT VELOCITY was affected by newtonian gravitational fields: c = c₀ . (1 + Φ/c²) ,
where c₀ is the value at the origin of the coordinates.

On March 20, 1912, Einstein submitted his new paper to Wien (Annalen der Physik), which was published as:

1912 - On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 38, 443–458

In section §3 of this paper Einstein reformulated his findings from his 1911 paper considering the time, and proposed
for first time (in a paper) the gravitational blue shifting of light as an effect of lower gravitational potentials. He wrote:

"If we measure time in S1 [lower gravitational potential] with a clock U, we must measure the time in S2 [higher gravitational
potential] with a clock that GOES 1 + Φ/c² SLOWER than the clock U if you compare it with the clock U in the same place".

And this is when the idea of gravity bending time started, until these days:

Being Φ(R) = - G.Me/R (Newton's gravitational potential, with R as distance from POINT-LIKE mass)

F(S2) = F(S1) . (1 + Φ(R)/c²) = F(S1) . [1 - G.Me/(R₂..c²)] ----------------- Gravitational blue shifting (born in 1912)

*****************************************************************************
Now, this formulae were conceived 109 years ago by Einstein and friends. By 1911, he had introduced his modifications
in a coordinates transform, by assuming that x transform included c and t² in the Minkowski space-time:

ξ = x + a.(cₒ + a.x).t²/2, η = y, ζ = z, τ = ct

obtaining:

∇c = κcρ (Laplacian, 1911)

and modifying it to:

∇c = κc²ρ (Laplacian, 1912)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this part is what I wanted to call attention to, because it's a derivation of Poisson's equation applied to Newtonian
gravity, where masses are point-like masses with infinite density.

Being Φ(r) = - G . m/r, Poisson's equation for gravity is: Δ Φ(r) = ∇² Φ(r) = 4π.G.ρ

where the operators are:

Δ = ∇² = ∂²/∂x² + ∂²/∂y² + ∂²/∂z² (Laplacian operator)

∇ = ∂/∂x + ∂/∂y + ∂/∂z (Divergence operator)

And this is want I wanted to REMARK. Einstein was modifying equations more than 100 years old, developed
for Newtonian gravity, with the use of E = mc² on his gravitational potential IN 1912. He also introduced the
change of ENERGY due to gravity by the same artificial conjectures.

In short, the very equations that are used in 2021 GPS for GR effects are the same that were ill conceived by March 1912,
much before than Dec. 1915 GR, and are SO ARBITRARY that I could use them even If I apply them to 1mm apart from 0,0,0.

And, to show how ARBITRARY and OLD the concepts applied to GPS relativity are I wrote:

> > But, if R₁ --> 0, ΔF --> ∞
> > Can anyone see how insane is this proposal? How unreal?

Hope I could explain myself better this time. Also, I did a mistake by swapping Δ with ∇ (as I said, I was tired).

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 8:22:35 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> And this is want I wanted to REMARK. Einstein was modifying equations more than 100 years old, developed
> for Newtonian gravity, with the use of E = mc² on his gravitational potential IN 1912.

GR has absolutely nothing to do with E = mc², crank.

> Hope I could explain myself better this time.

No, you can't. Because you are a pathetic odious crank.