I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?

It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?

The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.

On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:

> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
> all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
> decreasing electrostatic field?
>
> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
> all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
> the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
> the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.

Crackpot index of John Baez:

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
“The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:50:01 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
>
> > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
> > all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
> > decreasing electrostatic field?
> >
> > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
> > all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
> > the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
> > the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> Crackpot index of John Baez:
>
> 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
> “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)

And you should never forgive to give your idiot guru Roberts
5 points for every word written in capital letters.

Drinking toilet water, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:50:01 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
>>
>>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
>>> all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
>>> decreasing electrostatic field?
>>>
>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
>>> all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
>>> the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
>>> the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
>>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
>>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
>> Crackpot index of John Baez:
>>
>> 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
>> “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)
>
> And you should never forgive to give your idiot guru Roberts
> 5 points for every word written in capital letters.
>

We don't have to address your concerns Maciej. You scream "Fuck you!"
we scream the same. Go die.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 19:20:03 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Drinking toilet water, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 17:50:01 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
> >>
> >>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
> >>> all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
> >>> decreasing electrostatic field?
> >>>
> >>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> >>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
> >>> all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
> >>> the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
> >>> the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> >>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> >>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> >> Crackpot index of John Baez:
> >>
> >> 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
> >> “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)
> >
> > And you should never forgive to give your idiot guru Roberts
> > 5 points for every word written in capital letters.
> >
> We don't have to address your concerns Maciej. You scream "Fuck you!"

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
>
> > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
> > all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
> > decreasing electrostatic field?
> >
> > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
> > all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
> > the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
> > the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> Crackpot index of John Baez:
>
> 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
> “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)

Dolan has several hundred crockpot points, so far...

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 5:48:24 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
> >
> > > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
> > > all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
> > > decreasing electrostatic field?
> > >
> > > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
> > > all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
> > > the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
> > > the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> > Crackpot index of John Baez:
> >
> > 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
> > “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)
> Dolan has several hundred crockpot points, so far...
I have now completed my study of the Bodkin and Paparios supplied papers on atomic time qua gravity. I can find no instance where the investigators took into consideration the earth's very considerable electrostatic field as having a possible effect on experimental outcomes.

On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?

No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.

> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]

That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
small compared to that of mass.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> > their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>
> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> small compared to that of mass.
>
> Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.

This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked one.. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.

Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> > > their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> > No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> > box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> > would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> > > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> >
> > That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> > always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> > and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> > are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> > clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> > spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> > electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> > metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> > of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> > small compared to that of mass.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>
> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>
> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.

What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> > > > their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> > > No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> > > box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> > > would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks..
> > > > It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > > > surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> > >
> > > That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> > > always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> > > and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> > > are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> > > clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> > > spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> > > electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> > > metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> > > of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> > > small compared to that of mass.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
> >
> > This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
> >
> > Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.

Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks: dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.

This from Wiki:

"A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"

So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy tale culture in post-modern science.

On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:

> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.

Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
same at the top and bottom of the ladder?

How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
don't even know the first thing about it?

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
> field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
> earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
> is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
> gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
> brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
> of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
> allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
> same at the top and bottom of the ladder?
>
> How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
> don't even know the first thing about it?
Your argument is not without merit, Moroney. But your argument also applies to electrical potential. And electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages. So do I win this one against you and Roberts?

On 4/11/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>> Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
>> field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
>> earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
>> is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
>> gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
>> brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
>> of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
>> allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
>> same at the top and bottom of the ladder?
>>
>> How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
>> don't even know the first thing about it?
>
> Your argument is not without merit, Moroney. But your argument also applies to electrical potential. And electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages. So do I win this one against you and Roberts?

Of course not. Nobody has claimed gravitational potential causes time
dilation.

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 09:56:38 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Of course not. Nobody has claimed gravitational potential causes time
> dilation.

Of course your idiot guru did; it was even "measured"
with ISO toys... but serious measurement equipment
prepared by professionals of GPS has refuted it, stupid
Mike.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 5:48:24 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:50:01 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-10 15:36:43 +0000, patdolan said:
>>>
>>>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed
>>>> all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with
>>>> decreasing electrostatic field?
>>>>
>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. This field, like
>>>> all electrostatic fields, diminishes as the reciprocal of the square of
>>>> the distance. Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field
>>>> the reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
>>>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
>>>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
>>> Crackpot index of John Baez:
>>>
>>> 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the
>>> “The Dolan Atomic Clock Hypothesis” when your name happens to be Dolan.)
>> Dolan has several hundred crockpot points, so far...
> I have now completed my study

Which involves what?

> of the Bodkin and Paparios supplied papers on atomic time qua gravity. I
> can find no instance where the investigators took into consideration the
> earth's very considerable electrostatic field as having a possible effect
> on experimental outcomes.

Could have also been a windy day. Rainy even.

>
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>>
>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
>> small compared to that of mass.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume
> exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment
> in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday
> cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case
> then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>
> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do
> side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked
> one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock,
> any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>
> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface
> of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the
> earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an
> infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin
> claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>

The time dilation is due to a difference in gravitational potential, not a
difference in the curvature.

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>>>
>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
>>> small compared to that of mass.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume
>> exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment
>> in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday
>> cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case
>> then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>>
>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do
>> side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked
>> one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock,
>> any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>>
>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The claim
>> that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature between a
>> few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good reason. You
>> might want to check my calculations for the difference in divergence of
>> the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface of the
>> earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth is
>> indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite plane.
>> So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between
>> the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>
> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and sun?

What kind of clocks were on these probes? We’re they built to be sensitive
to gravitational time dilation?

> That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
>>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
>>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
>>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
>>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
>>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>>>>
>>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
>>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
>>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
>>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
>>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
>>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
>>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
>>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
>>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
>>>> small compared to that of mass.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
>>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
>>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
>>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
>>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>>>
>>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
>>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
>>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
>>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>>>
>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
>>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
>>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
>>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
>>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
>>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
>>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
>> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
>> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
>
> Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
> detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
> dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.

That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
up to you. If so, why are you here?

>
> This from Wiki:
>
> "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
> questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
> have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
> (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
> engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
> scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
> reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
> contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
> survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
> reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
> although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
> researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
>
> So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
> tale culture in post-modern science.
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
>>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
>>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
>>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
>>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
>>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
>>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>> Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
>> field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
>> earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
>> is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
>> gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
>> brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
>> of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
>> allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
>> same at the top and bottom of the ladder?
>>
>> How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
>> don't even know the first thing about it?
>
> Your argument is not without merit, Moroney. But your argument also
> applies to electrical potential. And electric potential is no respecter
> of Faraday cages.

Yes it is. That’s kind of the point.

> So do I win this one against you and Roberts?
>

Why is “winning” a thing?

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

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:07:57 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> >>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> >>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> >>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> >>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> >>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> >>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> >>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> >>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> >>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> >>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> >>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> >>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> >>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> >>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> >>>> small compared to that of mass.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> >>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
> >>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
> >>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
> >>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
> >>>
> >>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
> >>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> >>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
> >>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
> >>>
> >>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> >>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> >>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
> >>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
> >>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
> >>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
> >>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
> >>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
> >>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> >> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
> >> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
> >> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
> >
> > Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
> > detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
> > dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.
> That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
> up to you. If so, why are you here?

A distrust of the prevailing science is the sine qua non of all true scientific advance. It was distrust of the guru Aristotle that impelled Galileo to schlep two cannon balls to the top of the tower of Pisa. It was distrust of guru Aristotle that compelled Pasteur to plug the neck of a broth pot with cotton.

And it was distrust of Einstein that drove William Wallace Campbell to the banks of the Colombia River to be the first to disprove that starlight could be bent by an eclipsed sun.

[ I fear I was too hard on Roberts. I thank him for his observation concerning faraday cages. [ Is Dono ill? He is usually baying like a coyote by now.] ]

> >
> > This from Wiki:
> >
> > "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
> > questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
> > have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
> > (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
> > engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
> > scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
> > reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
> > contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
> > survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
> > reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
> > although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
> > researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
> >
> > So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
> > tale culture in post-modern science.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:07:57 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
>>>>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
>>>>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
>>>>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
>>>>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
>>>>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>>>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
>>>>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
>>>>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
>>>>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
>>>>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
>>>>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
>>>>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
>>>>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
>>>>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
>>>>>> small compared to that of mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
>>>>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
>>>>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
>>>>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
>>>>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>>>>>
>>>>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
>>>>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
>>>>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
>>>>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
>>>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
>>>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
>>>>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
>>>>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
>>>>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
>>>>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
>>>>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
>>>>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>>>> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
>>>> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
>>>> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
>>>
>>> Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
>>> detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
>>> dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.
>> That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
>> up to you. If so, why are you here?
>
> A distrust of the prevailing science is the sine qua non of all true scientific advance.

This is a bit silly if you think about it. If everything in science were
doubted then science would have zero cumulative gain. Every step forward
would be dismissed. Scientific knowledge gains over the centuries. How
would you explain that progress if everything were untrusted?

> It was distrust of the guru Aristotle that impelled Galileo to schlep two
> cannon balls to the top of the tower of Pisa. It was distrust of guru
> Aristotle that compelled Pasteur to plug the neck of a broth pot with cotton.

This is something different. Aristotle did not think by the scientific
method. What Galileo and Pasteur and others brought to the table was
consulting nature through experiment, where Aristotle and other Hellenists
analyzed by the mind alone. In consulting nature, the premise is that
nature is going to behave the same if we experiment today or experiment a
century from now. This is why the cumulative body of experimental evidence
is so important in science, not just what you happen to look at today.

>
> And it was distrust of Einstein that drove William Wallace Campbell to
> the banks of the Colombia River to be the first to disprove that
> starlight could be bent by an eclipsed sun.
>
> [ I fear I was too hard on Roberts. I thank him for his observation
> concerning faraday cages. [ Is Dono ill? He is usually baying like a coyote by now.] ]
>
>
>>>
>>> This from Wiki:
>>>
>>> "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
>>> questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
>>> have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
>>> (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
>>> engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
>>> scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
>>> reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
>>> contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
>>> survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
>>> reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
>>> although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
>>> researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
>>>
>>> So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
>>> tale culture in post-modern science.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:38:35 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:07:57 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> > >>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> > >>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> > >>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> > >>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> > >>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> > >>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> > >>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> > >>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> > >>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> > >>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> > >>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> > >>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> > >>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> > >>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> > >>>> small compared to that of mass.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > >>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> > >>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
> > >>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
> > >>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
> > >>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
> > >>>
> > >>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
> > >>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> > >>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
> > >>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> > >>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> > >>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
> > >>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
> > >>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
> > >>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
> > >>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
> > >>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
> > >>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> > >> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
> > >> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
> > >> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
> > >
> > > Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
> > > detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
> > > dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.
> > That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
> > up to you. If so, why are you here?
> A distrust of the prevailing science is the sine qua non of all true scientific advance. It was distrust of the guru Aristotle that impelled Galileo to schlep two cannon balls to the top of the tower of Pisa. It was distrust of guru Aristotle that compelled Pasteur to plug the neck of a broth pot with cotton.
>
> And it was distrust of Einstein that drove William Wallace Campbell to the banks of the Colombia River to be the first to disprove that starlight could be bent by an eclipsed sun.
>
> [ I fear I was too hard on Roberts. I thank him for his observation concerning faraday cages. [ Is Dono ill? He is usually baying like a coyote by now.] ]
> > >
> > > This from Wiki:
> > >
> > > "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
> > > questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
> > > have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
> > > (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
> > > engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
> > > scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
> > > reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
> > > contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
> > > survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
> > > reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
> > > although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
> > > researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
> > >
> > > So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
> > > tale culture in post-modern science.
> > >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The Roberts Objection to the Dolan Hypothesis can easily be tested by placing an atomic clock inside a Faraday cage then steadily increasing the Faraday cage's surface potential with a Van de Graaf. It is the considered opinion of the Discoverer of the conflict between Einstein One and Kepler Three, that this experiment will solve as to why a light wave atomic clock's tick rate increases (if it in fact it actually does, in light of post-modern Science's reproducibility crisis) with increasing gravitational and electrostatic potential.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:55:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:07:57 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> >>>>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> >>>>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> >>>>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> >>>>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> >>>>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> >>>>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> >>>>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> >>>>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> >>>>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> >>>>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> >>>>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> >>>>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> >>>>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> >>>>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> >>>>>> small compared to that of mass.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> >>>>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
> >>>>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
> >>>>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
> >>>>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
> >>>>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> >>>>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
> >>>>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> >>>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> >>>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
> >>>>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
> >>>>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
> >>>>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
> >>>>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
> >>>>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
> >>>>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> >>>> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
> >>>> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
> >>>> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular batteries gave out.
> >>>
> >>> Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
> >>> detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
> >>> dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.
> >> That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
> >> up to you. If so, why are you here?
> >
> > A distrust of the prevailing science is the sine qua non of all true scientific advance.
> This is a bit silly if you think about it. If everything in science were
> doubted then science would have zero cumulative gain. Every step forward
> would be dismissed. Scientific knowledge gains over the centuries. How
> would you explain that progress if everything were untrusted?
> > It was distrust of the guru Aristotle that impelled Galileo to schlep two
> > cannon balls to the top of the tower of Pisa. It was distrust of guru
> > Aristotle that compelled Pasteur to plug the neck of a broth pot with cotton.
> This is something different. Aristotle did not think by the scientific
> method. What Galileo and Pasteur and others brought to the table was
> consulting nature through experiment, where Aristotle and other Hellenists
> analyzed by the mind alone. In consulting nature, the premise is that
> nature is going to behave the same if we experiment today or experiment a
> century from now. This is why the cumulative body of experimental evidence
> is so important in science, not just what you happen to look at today.

Preposterous! What we have here, Ladies & Gents, Trans's & Fluids, is a real example of a troglodyte pre-Kuhnzian science enthusiast in Bodkin.

Bodkin, if I go back to a chapter-by-chapter work-through of Spacetime Physics with you, will you agree to a chapter-by-chapter work-through of Structures with me?
> >
> > And it was distrust of Einstein that drove William Wallace Campbell to
> > the banks of the Colombia River to be the first to disprove that
> > starlight could be bent by an eclipsed sun.
> >
> > [ I fear I was too hard on Roberts. I thank him for his observation
> > concerning faraday cages. [ Is Dono ill? He is usually baying like a coyote by now.] ]
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> This from Wiki:
> >>>
> >>> "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
> >>> questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
> >>> have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
> >>> (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
> >>> engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
> >>> scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
> >>> reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
> >>> contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
> >>> survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
> >>> reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
> >>> although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
> >>> researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
> >>>
> >>> So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
> >>> tale culture in post-modern science.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 13:01:45 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
> >>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
> >> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
> >> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
> >> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
> >>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
> >>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
> >>
> >> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
> >> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
> >> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
> >> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
> >> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
> >> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
> >> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
> >> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
> >> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
> >> small compared to that of mass.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always assume
> > exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful comment
> > in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the Faraday
> > cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own instrument case
> > then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
> >
> > This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis. Do
> > side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly naked
> > one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic clock,
> > any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
> >
> > Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> > claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> > between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
> > reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
> > divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the surface
> > of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the
> > earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an
> > infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as Bodkin
> > claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> >
> The time dilation is due to a difference in gravitational potential, not a
> difference in the curvature.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.