On 4/9/2022 12:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:33:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
>> such switch.
>
> <snip>
>
> NO, failed EE!. That's NOT the way atomic clocks work!
>
> Can't believe you didn't learn anything from previous threads in the last years!

[snip babble]

The use of the Cs hyperfine frequency is often an explanation to explain
things better since the second is defined as being 9,192,631,770 cycle
times of the Cs hyperfine transition on a local Cs clock. Many of the
GPS birds used rubidium clocks instead. If you want, you can discuss
the GPS satellite transmitting at 10.22999999543 MHz to be received on
earth at 10.23 MHz, using a 9,192,631,770 or a 9,192,631,774.1 divisor,
or 446.47 parts per trillion difference. It's all the exact same thing.
A time differential of 38µS/day, which greatly exceeds the required
precision in the nanoseconds/day range. This rate differential of
446.47 parts per trillion caused by GR needs to be compensated for. Period.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > Link please.
> > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
>
> Patrick, you don't seem to understand how science Works...repeating an
> experiment doesn't mean you'll get the same results (or any results).
>
> 'they' don't like anyone repeating their fraudlent experiments.
>
> "repeating" is a myth.
>
> HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR ...PROOF!
>
> you wanna get somebody in trouble or sometin?
>
> Have you any idea how many scientist have received hundreds of thousands
> of dollars for ther fraudlent experiments????
>
> you wanna git em in trouble?

Who shall be the one that repeats the experiments?

He who is without sin may they throw the first stone...

Dis Italian guy tell the judge
at the immgration court...

"Judge a ya honor, I no dink i'ma gonna passa da test."

and the judge tells him..."Don't cha worry, you'a gonna a passa da
test."

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 6:28:01 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 12:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:33:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
> >> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
> >> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
> >> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
> >> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
> >> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
> >> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
> >> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
> >> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
> >> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
> >> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
> >> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
> >> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
> >> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
> >> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
> >> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
> >> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
> >> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
> >> such switch.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > NO, failed EE!. That's NOT the way atomic clocks work!
> >
> > Can't believe you didn't learn anything from previous threads in the last years!
> [snip babble]
>
> The use of the Cs hyperfine frequency is often an explanation to explain
> things better since the second is defined as being 9,192,631,770 cycle
> times of the Cs hyperfine transition on a local Cs clock. Many of the
> GPS birds used rubidium clocks instead. If you want, you can discuss
> the GPS satellite transmitting at 10.22999999543 MHz to be received on
> earth at 10.23 MHz, using a 9,192,631,770 or a 9,192,631,774.1 divisor,
> or 446.47 parts per trillion difference. It's all the exact same thing.
> A time differential of 38µS/day, which greatly exceeds the required
> precision in the nanoseconds/day range. This rate differential of
> 446.47 parts per trillion caused by GR needs to be compensated for. Period.

You are an idiot, Moroney. And for worse, an argumentative idiot.

How can I have any discussion, at any level, with a world-class moron like you?
You are beyond any rational discussion, because you fill 80% of the points of the following article.

A fucking donkey would get better scores in rationality than you and your stubborn, fossilized mind.

https://www.minimalismmadesimple.com/home/self-entitled-person/

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 11:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2022 7:41 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also note that for the first 20 years of the GPS's existence the GPS algorithms contained not one single hint of correction for either SR or GR effects.
> >> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
> >> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
> >> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
> >> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
> >> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
> >> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
> >> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
> >> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
> >> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
> >> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
> >> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
> >> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
> >> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
> >> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
> >> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
> >> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
> >> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
> >> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
> >> such switch.
> >>
> >> (insert response by Wozniak with the false claim the results are 180
> >> degrees backwards from what they actually are here)
> >>
> >> Since the GPS used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979, claiming
> >> the system didn't have any SR/GR corrections at all for 20 years is
> >> false, and absurdly so.
> >>> It wasn't until the early 2000s that Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups forced the Air Force to include GR and SR "correction factors" into those algorithms--factors that have no practical effect on the system.
> >> Absurd claim, the system used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979,
> >> and there isn't any way to add such corrections later without having
> >> effects on the system.
> >>
> >> "Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups" sounds like paranoid conspiracy
> >> theories to me.
> >>> I found links to some of the early power point presentations to the Air Force as to why corrections should be made, and posted them in this forum. The Air Force, being a public funded entity, eventually complied with their request.
> >> Absurd. The GPS used SR/GR corrections from its inception, other than
> >> being initially disabled in the first prototype for 20 days.
> > Cite/link the documents that prove this.
> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf
> https://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/the-relativity-switch.php

From the first link:

"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."

I rest my case Moroney. Just as with Eddington's flawed experiment to prove the gravitational bending of starlight, so too with the gravitational bending of time. In each case there is only one set of experimental results which have never been duplicated.

As RH has already pointed out, the fiberoptic stuff is ridiculous without proper controls on temp, duration, humidity gradients, atm pressure gradients. And there are no reputable duplication of results by skeptics.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:25:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > > Link please.
> > > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> >
> > Patrick, you don't seem to understand how science Works...repeating an
> > experiment doesn't mean you'll get the same results (or any results).
> >
> > 'they' don't like anyone repeating their fraudlent experiments.
> >
> > "repeating" is a myth.
> >
> > HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR ...PROOF!
> >
> > you wanna get somebody in trouble or sometin?
> >
> > Have you any idea how many scientist have received hundreds of thousands
> > of dollars for ther fraudlent experiments????
> >
> > you wanna git em in trouble?
> Who shall be the one that repeats the experiments?
>
> He who is without sin may they throw the first stone...

Who, Starmaker? Look over HIS shoulder as He writes the answer in the dust: the skeptics should be the ones to repeat all non-null experiments in relativity.

Now I must nap in preparation for another very cold Seattle springtime splash in Green Lake.
>
> Dis Italian guy tell the judge
> at the immgration court...
>
> "Judge a ya honor, I no dink i'ma gonna passa da test."
>
> and the judge tells him..."Don't cha worry, you'a gonna a passa da
> test."
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/9/2022 11:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2022 7:41 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I also note that for the first 20 years of the GPS's existence the GPS algorithms contained not one single hint of correction for either SR or GR effects.
>>>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
>>>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
>>>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
>>>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
>>>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
>>>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
>>>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
>>>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
>>>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
>>>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
>>>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
>>>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
>>>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
>>>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
>>>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
>>>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
>>>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
>>>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
>>>> such switch.
>>>>
>>>> (insert response by Wozniak with the false claim the results are 180
>>>> degrees backwards from what they actually are here)
>>>>
>>>> Since the GPS used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979, claiming
>>>> the system didn't have any SR/GR corrections at all for 20 years is
>>>> false, and absurdly so.
>>>>> It wasn't until the early 2000s that Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups forced the Air Force to include GR and SR "correction factors" into those algorithms--factors that have no practical effect on the system.
>>>> Absurd claim, the system used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979,
>>>> and there isn't any way to add such corrections later without having
>>>> effects on the system.
>>>>
>>>> "Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups" sounds like paranoid conspiracy
>>>> theories to me.
>>>>> I found links to some of the early power point presentations to the Air Force as to why corrections should be made, and posted them in this forum. The Air Force, being a public funded entity, eventually complied with their request.
>>>> Absurd. The GPS used SR/GR corrections from its inception, other than
>>>> being initially disabled in the first prototype for 20 days.
>>> Cite/link the documents that prove this.
>> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
>> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf
>> https://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/the-relativity-switch.php
>
> From the first link:
>
> "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."
>
> I rest my case Moroney. Just as with Eddington's flawed experiment to prove the gravitational bending of starlight, so too with the gravitational bending of time. In each case there is only one set of experimental results which have never been duplicated.

Every single satellite from GPS fleet is a duplication of the
experiment, also is any satellite launch for other similar project
(GLONASS, etc.)

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2022 11:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/9/2022 7:41 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I also note that for the first 20 years of the GPS's existence the GPS algorithms contained not one single hint of correction for either SR or GR effects.
> >>>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
> >>>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
> >>>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
> >>>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
> >>>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
> >>>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
> >>>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
> >>>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
> >>>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
> >>>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
> >>>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
> >>>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
> >>>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
> >>>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
> >>>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
> >>>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
> >>>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
> >>>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
> >>>> such switch.
> >>>>
> >>>> (insert response by Wozniak with the false claim the results are 180
> >>>> degrees backwards from what they actually are here)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the GPS used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979, claiming
> >>>> the system didn't have any SR/GR corrections at all for 20 years is
> >>>> false, and absurdly so.
> >>>>> It wasn't until the early 2000s that Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups forced the Air Force to include GR and SR "correction factors" into those algorithms--factors that have no practical effect on the system.
> >>>> Absurd claim, the system used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979,
> >>>> and there isn't any way to add such corrections later without having
> >>>> effects on the system.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups" sounds like paranoid conspiracy
> >>>> theories to me.
> >>>>> I found links to some of the early power point presentations to the Air Force as to why corrections should be made, and posted them in this forum. The Air Force, being a public funded entity, eventually complied with their request.
> >>>> Absurd. The GPS used SR/GR corrections from its inception, other than
> >>>> being initially disabled in the first prototype for 20 days.
> >>> Cite/link the documents that prove this.
> >> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
> >> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf
> >> https://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/the-relativity-switch.php
> >
> > From the first link:
> >
> > "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."
> >
> > I rest my case Moroney. Just as with Eddington's flawed experiment to prove the gravitational bending of starlight, so too with the gravitational bending of time. In each case there is only one set of experimental results which have never been duplicated.
> Every single satellite from GPS fleet is a duplication of the
> experiment, also is any satellite launch for other similar project
> (GLONASS, etc.)

Python, you have now seen the words. The truth has been set free by Moroney's link--the truth that every practical man either knew in his heart or knew from documentation. NO GPS SATELLITE TODAY CORRECTS FOR RELATIVITY, either special or general. They are ALL STEERED to a common 1 msec envelope around UCT. Admit this to yourself.

El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > Link please.
> > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > patdolan wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/9/2022 11:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 4/9/2022 7:41 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I also note that for the first 20 years of the GPS's existence the GPS algorithms contained not one single hint of correction for either SR or GR effects.
> > >>>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
> > >>>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
> > >>>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
> > >>>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
> > >>>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
> > >>>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
> > >>>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
> > >>>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
> > >>>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
> > >>>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
> > >>>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
> > >>>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
> > >>>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
> > >>>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
> > >>>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
> > >>>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
> > >>>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
> > >>>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
> > >>>> such switch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (insert response by Wozniak with the false claim the results are 180
> > >>>> degrees backwards from what they actually are here)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since the GPS used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979, claiming
> > >>>> the system didn't have any SR/GR corrections at all for 20 years is
> > >>>> false, and absurdly so.
> > >>>>> It wasn't until the early 2000s that Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups forced the Air Force to include GR and SR "correction factors" into those algorithms--factors that have no practical effect on the system.
> > >>>> Absurd claim, the system used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979,
> > >>>> and there isn't any way to add such corrections later without having
> > >>>> effects on the system.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups" sounds like paranoid conspiracy
> > >>>> theories to me.
> > >>>>> I found links to some of the early power point presentations to the Air Force as to why corrections should be made, and posted them in this forum. The Air Force, being a public funded entity, eventually complied with their request.
> > >>>> Absurd. The GPS used SR/GR corrections from its inception, other than
> > >>>> being initially disabled in the first prototype for 20 days.
> > >>> Cite/link the documents that prove this.
> > >> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
> > >> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf
> > >> https://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/the-relativity-switch..php
> > >
> > > From the first link:
> > >
> > > "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."
> > >
> > > I rest my case Moroney. Just as with Eddington's flawed experiment to prove the gravitational bending of starlight, so too with the gravitational bending of time. In each case there is only one set of experimental results which have never been duplicated.
> > Every single satellite from GPS fleet is a duplication of the
> > experiment, also is any satellite launch for other similar project
> > (GLONASS, etc.)
> Python, you have now seen the words. The truth has been set free by Moroney's link--the truth that every practical man either knew in his heart or knew from documentation. NO GPS SATELLITE TODAY CORRECTS FOR RELATIVITY, either special or general. They are ALL STEERED to a common 1 msec envelope around UCT. Admit this to yourself.

Moroney's second link from the Naval Research Laboratory purports to "verify" the "relativistic clock effect" during this 1973 pioneering GPS launch. But it does no such thing. It only verify what engineers had know since Gemini, namely, that clocks speed up about 38 usec/day during free fall. This is not the same as verifying that immaterial time speeds up just because material clocks speed up.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:16:16 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > Link please.
> > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8

Your link is behind a paywall, Papparios. Please see my earlier comments on uncontrolled variables. When will one of the growing number of relativity skeptics in the scientific community confirm relativity with optical clocks?

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:32:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:16:16 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > > Link please.
> > > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8
> Your link is behind a paywall, Papparios. Please see my earlier comments on uncontrolled variables. When will one of the growing number of relativity skeptics in the scientific community confirm relativity with optical clocks?
Researching into the latest on optical clocks, I found this:

"Second, the stabilities of one part in [sic]1015 are only possible by averaging the signal over a period of about a day, which makes it hard to use the fountain clock at this level of accuracy in real time."

Also, I can find nowhere the evidence of relativity investigators to take into account the Earth's electrostatic field of 100-300 volts per meter when attempting to determine the curvature of time between the surface of the earth and say 75m with atomic clocks. The electrostatic field must contribute a huge affect on the operation and time precision of atomic clocks. It may well account for the 1973 GPS test flight results.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Such signal is NOT a feedback DC signal BECAUSE hyperfine transitions in
>>>>> the 9.12 Ghz range have variations within
>>>>> +/- 300 Hz, centered around the nominal 9,192,631,770 Hz average value.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have evidence that the frequency of the hyperfine transition in cesium
>>>> varies stochastically by +/- 300Hz?
>>>>
>>>> Fantastic! Where is that evidence?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> If an atomic clock can reliably detect a difference of 45 usec/day at an
>>> altitude of 20,000km then it should be able to reliably detect a
>>> difference of at least 45 usec/decade at an altitude of 4km (top of Mt.
>>> Rainier) when compared to sea level. Where is that evidence?
>> Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
>> about a step ladder a few years ago.
>
> Link please.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

>>>
>>> Just as in the case of the gravitational bending of starlight, the
>>> experimental results for gravitational time dilation does not exist.
>> Oh poor boy. So out of touch.
>>>
>>> Since the Mercury program, engineers have noted a speeding up of the
>>> onboard clocks of orbiting space vehicles by 30-40 usecs/day. But this
>>> is easily explained by the vanishing of mechanical forces on circuit
>>> components during free fall.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
>>> El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
>>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
>>>>> about a step ladder a few years ago.
>>>> Link please.
>>> C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September
>>> 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
>> Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to
>> anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
>
> Never mind Papparios. I've found the related articles. It only takes a
> quick glance at the experimental set up to determine that they
> investigator were either measuring the temperature gradient of the fiber
> optic cable between its top and bottom, or the atmospheric pressure
> gradient acting on the fiber optic cable between top and bottom, or a combination of both.
>

Be sure to write them and let them know they are wrong and clearly
unprofessional.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 5:38:31 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Such signal is NOT a feedback DC signal BECAUSE hyperfine transitions in
> >>>>> the 9.12 Ghz range have variations within
> >>>>> +/- 300 Hz, centered around the nominal 9,192,631,770 Hz average value.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> You have evidence that the frequency of the hyperfine transition in cesium
> >>>> varies stochastically by +/- 300Hz?
> >>>>
> >>>> Fantastic! Where is that evidence?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> If an atomic clock can reliably detect a difference of 45 usec/day at an
> >>> altitude of 20,000km then it should be able to reliably detect a
> >>> difference of at least 45 usec/decade at an altitude of 4km (top of Mt.
> >>> Rainier) when compared to sea level. Where is that evidence?
> >> Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> >> about a step ladder a few years ago.
> >
> > Link please.
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
You're kidding, right Bodkin? This extract from your link is your standard for disclosure of experimental results:

"In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted."

That's it, not a single numeral in the article.

> >>>
> >>> Just as in the case of the gravitational bending of starlight, the
> >>> experimental results for gravitational time dilation does not exist.
> >> Oh poor boy. So out of touch.
> >>>
> >>> Since the Mercury program, engineers have noted a speeding up of the
> >>> onboard clocks of orbiting space vehicles by 30-40 usecs/day. But this
> >>> is easily explained by the vanishing of mechanical forces on circuit
> >>> components during free fall.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 19:32:03 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:16:16 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > > Link please.
> > > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8
> Your link is behind a paywall, Papparios. Please see my earlier comments on uncontrolled variables. When will one of the growing number of relativity skeptics in the scientific community confirm relativity with optical clocks?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340467276_Test_of_general_relativity_by_a_pair_of_transportable_optical_lattice_clocks

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 19:32:03 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:16:16 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > > > Link please.
> > > > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > > > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8
> > Your link is behind a paywall, Papparios. Please see my earlier comments on uncontrolled variables. When will one of the growing number of relativity skeptics in the scientific community confirm relativity with optical clocks?
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340467276_Test_of_general_relativity_by_a_pair_of_transportable_optical_lattice_clocks
Paparios, you fiend, this link leads straight back to the same pay wall.

On 4/9/2022 6:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/9/2022 11:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2022 7:41 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I also note that for the first 20 years of the GPS's existence the GPS algorithms contained not one single hint of correction for either SR or GR effects.
>>>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
>>>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
>>>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
>>>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
>>>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
>>>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
>>>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
>>>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
>>>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
>>>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
>>>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
>>>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
>>>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
>>>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
>>>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
>>>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
>>>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
>>>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
>>>> such switch.
>>>>
>>>> (insert response by Wozniak with the false claim the results are 180
>>>> degrees backwards from what they actually are here)
>>>>
>>>> Since the GPS used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979, claiming
>>>> the system didn't have any SR/GR corrections at all for 20 years is
>>>> false, and absurdly so.
>>>>> It wasn't until the early 2000s that Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups forced the Air Force to include GR and SR "correction factors" into those algorithms--factors that have no practical effect on the system.
>>>> Absurd claim, the system used SR/GR corrections from the start in 1979,
>>>> and there isn't any way to add such corrections later without having
>>>> effects on the system.
>>>>
>>>> "Einstein enthusiast lobbying groups" sounds like paranoid conspiracy
>>>> theories to me.
>>>>> I found links to some of the early power point presentations to the Air Force as to why corrections should be made, and posted them in this forum. The Air Force, being a public funded entity, eventually complied with their request.
>>>> Absurd. The GPS used SR/GR corrections from its inception, other than
>>>> being initially disabled in the first prototype for 20 days.
>>> Cite/link the documents that prove this.
>> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
>> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA058591.pdf
>> https://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/the-relativity-switch.php
>
> From the first link:
>
> "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."

Now look up how many nanoseconds that "active steering" is. Compare
that figure to 38,000 nanosecond per day from GR compensation.
>
> I rest my case Moroney.

You didn't even address your issue, your disbelief that GR compensation
was used from the start of the GPS project. Quit moving the goalposts.

> Just as with Eddington's flawed experiment to prove the gravitational bending of starlight, so too with the gravitational bending of time. In each case there is only one set of experimental results which have never been duplicated.

Those experimental results are continuously duplicated by every GPS
satellite plus the satellites of the Russian, European, Chinese etc.
equivalents.
>
> As RH has already pointed out, the fiberoptic stuff is ridiculous without proper controls on temp, duration, humidity gradients, atm pressure gradients. And there are no reputable duplication of results by skeptics.

Proper experimentation compensates for stuff which you mentioned. Your
wishing those results are invalid doesn't make it so.

On 4/9/2022 6:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 6:28:01 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/9/2022 12:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:33:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
>>>> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
>>>> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
>>>> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
>>>> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
>>>> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
>>>> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
>>>> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
>>>> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
>>>> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
>>>> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
>>>> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
>>>> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
>>>> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
>>>> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
>>>> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
>>>> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
>>>> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
>>>> such switch.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> NO, failed EE!. That's NOT the way atomic clocks work!
>>>
>>> Can't believe you didn't learn anything from previous threads in the last years!
>> [snip babble]
>>
>> The use of the Cs hyperfine frequency is often an explanation to explain
>> things better since the second is defined as being 9,192,631,770 cycle
>> times of the Cs hyperfine transition on a local Cs clock. Many of the
>> GPS birds used rubidium clocks instead. If you want, you can discuss
>> the GPS satellite transmitting at 10.22999999543 MHz to be received on
>> earth at 10.23 MHz, using a 9,192,631,770 or a 9,192,631,774.1 divisor,
>> or 446.47 parts per trillion difference. It's all the exact same thing.
>> A time differential of 38µS/day, which greatly exceeds the required
>> precision in the nanoseconds/day range. This rate differential of
>> 446.47 parts per trillion caused by GR needs to be compensated for. Period.
>
> You are an idiot, Moroney. And for worse, an argumentative idiot.
>
> How can I have any discussion, at any level, with a world-class moron like you?
> You are beyond any rational discussion, because you fill 80% of the points of the following article.

The point was that there is a difference of 446.47 parts per trillion
between the transmitted signal frequency and the received (on earth)
signal frequency. Whether you call it 446.47 parts per trillion,
10.22999999543 MHz vs 10.23 MHz, 38 µS/day, or 9,192,631,770 vs.
9,192,631,774.1 is irrelevant, it needs to be compensated for. The
stuff I snipped is irrelevant to that point.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 5:38:31 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Such signal is NOT a feedback DC signal BECAUSE hyperfine transitions in
> > >>>>> the 9.12 Ghz range have variations within
> > >>>>> +/- 300 Hz, centered around the nominal 9,192,631,770 Hz average value.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> You have evidence that the frequency of the hyperfine transition in cesium
> > >>>> varies stochastically by +/- 300Hz?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fantastic! Where is that evidence?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>> If an atomic clock can reliably detect a difference of 45 usec/day at an
> > >>> altitude of 20,000km then it should be able to reliably detect a
> > >>> difference of at least 45 usec/decade at an altitude of 4km (top of Mt.
> > >>> Rainier) when compared to sea level. Where is that evidence?
> > >> Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > >> about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > >
> > > Link please.
> > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
> You're kidding, right Bodkin? This extract from your link is your standard for disclosure of experimental results:
>
> "In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted."
>
> That's it, not a single numeral in the article.

My head runs at a faster rate than my feet...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 19:32:03 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:16:16 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 16:12:13 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > El sábado, 9 de abril de 2022 a las 15:23:08 UTC-4, patdolan escribió:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 10:32:16 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forget Mt. Rainier. This has been measured at a difference of elevation of
> > > > > > > > about a step ladder a few years ago.
> > > > > > > Link please.
> > > > > > C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland (24 September 2010), "Optical clocks and relativity", Science, 329(5999): 1630–1633;
> > > > > Thank you Paparios. Now, and this is most important, please link us to anyone who has repeated this experiment from 12 years ago.
> > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8
> > > Your link is behind a paywall, Papparios. Please see my earlier comments on uncontrolled variables. When will one of the growing number of relativity skeptics in the scientific community confirm relativity with optical clocks?
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340467276_Test_of_general_relativity_by_a_pair_of_transportable_optical_lattice_clocks
> Paparios, you fiend, this link leads straight back to the same pay wall.

Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable
optical lattice clocks
Letters
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-020-0619-8
1Quantum Metrology Laboratory, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama, Japan. 2Space-Time
Engineering Research Team, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama, Japan. 3Department of
Applied Physics, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of
Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 4Geospatial Information Authority of
Japan, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, Japan. 5Osaka Institute of Technology, Kitayama, Hirakata,
Osaka, Japan. ?e-mail: katori@amo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
A clock at a higher altitude ticks faster than one at a lower
altitude, in accordance with Einstein’s theory of general rela-
tivity. The outstanding stability and accuracy of optical clocks,
at 10-18 levels1–5, allows height differences6 of a centimetre
to be measured. However, such state-of-the-art clocks have
been demonstrated only in well-conditioned laboratories.
Here, we demonstrate an 18-digit-precision frequency com-
parison in a broadcasting tower, Tokyo Skytree, by developing
transportable optical lattice clocks. The tower provides the
clocks with adverse conditions to test the robustness and a
450?m height difference to test the gravitational redshift at
(1.4?±?9.1)?×?10-5. The result improves ground-based clock
comparisons7–9 by an order of magnitude and is comparable
with space experiments10,11. Our demonstration shows that
optical clocks resolving centimetres are technically ready for
field applications, such as monitoring spatiotemporal changes
of geopotentials caused by active volcanoes or crustal defor-
mation12 and for defining the geoid13,14, which will have an
immense impact on future society.
Einstein formulated general relativity (GR) as the theory of
gravity in 1915, in which he explained the origin of gravity is the
curvature of space and time. Over the century since then, alternative
theories of gravity have been proposed, and they have been tested
in many ways15. Although GR is believed to be the best theory of
gravity, there are aspects that are not completely satisfactory. First,
although special relativity has been integrated with quantum theory
as quantum field theory, GR is not yet unified, preventing a single
ultimate theory. Second, the current standard cosmological model
based on GR has to introduce unknown ‘dark energy’ to explain
the accelerating Universe16. Plausible solutions to the ‘dark energy’
problem are to throw away the cosmological principle (a homoge-
neous and isotropic Universe) or to modify GR. Thus, the precise
measurement of the validity of GR is an important step towards
understanding fundamental physics, even in the classical regime.
GR predicts the dilation of time in a deeper gravitational poten-
tial; this is referred to as gravitational redshift. The gravitational
redshift between clocks (?? = ?2 - ?1) located at positions 1 and 2
is given by their gravitational potential difference ?U = U2 - U1 as
??
?1
¼
1 þ
a ðÞ
?U
c 2
ð
1 Þ
to first order of ?U, where ?1(2) is the clock frequency at location 1
(2), c is the speed of light and a denotes the violation from GR (a = 0
for GR). The measurement of a at different locations serves as a test
of local position invariance (LPI), which describes the result of a
non-local gravitational experiment being independent of place and
time, which is at the heart of Einstein's equivalence principle, the
starting principle of GR.
The first redshift measurement was carried out in the series of
Pound–Rebka–Snider experiments7 in the early 1960s, in which
they obtained
j a
j <
O 10?2
ðÞ
I with a height difference of ?h = 23 m.
Later, the Gravity Probe A mission17 obtained |a| ˜ 1.4 × 10-4 using
a hydrogen maser in a spacecraft launched to ?h = 10,000 km.
Recently, using two Galileo satellites that accidentally took elliptic
orbits with a height difference of ?h ˜ 8,500 km, new constraints were
reported as a = (0.19 ± 2.48) × 10-5 (ref. 10) and a = (4.5 ± 3.1) ×
10-5
(ref. 11). The uncertainty of a is mainly given by c2
? U
d ?
? 1
I , suggesting
that accurate frequency measurement of clocks (uc = d?/?1) is at the
heart of the endeavour, in particular, for ground experiments with
?h less than a kilometre, as ?U is nearly four orders of magnitude
smaller than the space experiments. A comparison of optical lattice
clocks at RIKEN and The University of Tokyo8 with ?h ˜ 15 m has
so far demonstrated a = (2.9 ± 3.6) × 10-3, limited by uc = 5.7 × 10-18.
Constraining a to better than 10-3 on the ground has remained
uninvestigated, as it requires outstanding clock accuracy or
height differences.
Transportable optical clocks with uncertainties below 10-16
(refs. 18–20) and laboratory-based clocks with uncertainties of 10-18
(refs. 1–3,5) or below4 offer new possibilities for testing fundamental
physics on the ground, for example, a test of Lorentz symmetry21 or a
search for dark matter22–27. The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
(PTB) and Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRiM) team
has reported a ˜ 10-2 by comparing a transportable clock in the
middle of a mountain and a laboratory clock, with ?h ˜ 1,000 m
(ref. 9). Here, we demonstrate a test of the gravitational redshift of
a = (1.4 ± 9.1) × 10-5 by developing a pair of transportable optical
lattice clocks and operating them with a height difference of
?h ˜ 450 m at Tokyo Skytree.
To operate Sr-based optical lattice clocks at 10-18 uncertainty,
reducing the blackbody radiation (BBR) shifts1–3 and the higher-
order light shifts28,29 is of prime concern. Applying a small-sized
BBR shield as depicted in Fig. 1a, the ambient temperature in the
spectroscopy region is controlled at 245 K by a four-stage Peltier
cooler. In addition, we reduce the total lattice light shift to 1 ×
10-18
by tuning the lattice laser to frequency ?L = 368,554,470.4 ± 0.2 MHz,
with polarization parallel to the bias magnetic field (Fig. 1a), and
by setting the lattice depth to 81ER, where ER is the lattice photon
recoil energy29, compensating the multipolar- and hyperpolari-
zability-induced light shift with the electric-dipole light shift28. To

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 22:37:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Measuring relativistic gravitational frequency shifts
> has become everyday routine in the meantime,

A pity that according to your Shit and its Holiest
Postulate the frequencies should be the same
everywhere.

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 23:28:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 12:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:33:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> You "note" incorrectly. The GR correction is in the GPS specs from the
> >> start. At the time of the launch of the first prototype GPS satellite,
> >> there must have been some discussion whether GR effects were valid,
> >> since the first GPS prototype bird had the ability to turn the GR clock
> >> adjustment on or off. That is, select between a Cs clock divisor of
> >> either 9,192,631,770 or 9,192,631,774.1 to generate all the signals
> >> intended for earth reception. Using 9,192,631,770 meant the transmitted
> >> frequency was the same as the received frequency, that is, no SR/GR
> >> effects. Using 9,192,631,774.1 meant using the effects predicted by SR
> >> and GR, and the transmitted frequencies were slightly below the received
> >> frequencies. That is, a frequency transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz was
> >> received on earth at 10.23 MHz. The satellite was launched in 1979, the
> >> switch was set to use 9,192,631,770 as the timebase divisor for 20 days.
> >> Meaning the SR/GR predictions don't apply. The satellite didn't work
> >> correctly, there was too much error. After 20 days, the switch was set
> >> to use 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor, meaning SR/GR needed to be
> >> accounted for, and then the system worked correctly. All further
> >> satellites used 9,192,631,774.1 as the divisor and none of them had any
> >> such switch.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > NO, failed EE!. That's NOT the way atomic clocks work!
> >
> > Can't believe you didn't learn anything from previous threads in the last years!
> [snip babble]
>
> The use of the Cs hyperfine frequency is often an explanation to explain
> things better since the second is defined as being 9,192,631,770 cycle
> times of the Cs hyperfine transition on a local Cs clock.

Sorry, stupid Mike, the definition is only accepted in your
moronic church. Like "By the best political system we mean
communism" is only valid in between communists.
As anyone can check at GPS, sane and competent
people are ignoring your mad ideology and setting
the clocks to count 9,192,631,774.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 05:46:39 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Now look up how many nanoseconds that "active steering" is. Compare
> that figure to 38,000 nanosecond per day from GR compensation.

Stupid Mike, your moronic Shit requires no compensation.
According to it the clocks should be set to 9,192,631,770
everywhere, for the glory of Giant Guru. GPS wouldn't
work, of course, but what a magnificient symmetry we would
have instead.

On 4/9/2022 7:23 PM, patdolan wrote:

> Moroney's second link from the Naval Research Laboratory purports to "verify" the "relativistic clock effect" during this 1973 pioneering GPS launch. But it does no such thing. It only verify what engineers had know since Gemini, namely, that clocks speed up about 38 usec/day during free fall. This is not the same as verifying that immaterial time speeds up just because material clocks speed up.

Again, you avoided the issue about whether the GPS satellites needed a
GR correction by transmitting on a carrier of 10.22999999543 MHz rather
than 10.23 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz, or if the
"Newtonian" switch setting, where time is the same everywhere, and
transmit at 10.23 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz was correct. Instead
you mention something about Gemini missions noticing time dilation
somehow disproving time dilation.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 08:51:25 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 7:23 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > Moroney's second link from the Naval Research Laboratory purports to "verify" the "relativistic clock effect" during this 1973 pioneering GPS launch. But it does no such thing. It only verify what engineers had know since Gemini, namely, that clocks speed up about 38 usec/day during free fall. This is not the same as verifying that immaterial time speeds up just because material clocks speed up.
> Again, you avoided the issue about whether the GPS satellites needed a
> GR correction

Again, your Shit predicts no corrections like that,
stupid Mike. Your idiot guru's revolutional concept
is - that everything should desynchronize, because
he likes it.