On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:51:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 4/11/22 2:35 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting
> > > on a tabletop!
> > You merely display your personal ignorance, which is legion.
> >
> > That calculation is a common homework problem in courses on GR.
> >
> > What I don't understand is why you, and so many others around here, keep
> > trying to write about subjects you clearly know nothing about. What's
> > the point? -- all you do is display your personal stupidity.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Then show it to us Roberts! I say here and now that you won't. That's why you reacted to my post with anger. Because you know I speak truth. Now show US!!!!!

It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14 years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational phenomena that can be measured.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
> years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
> Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
> complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
> table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
> lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
> yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
> of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
> phenomena that can be measured.
>

On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.

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

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
> > years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
> > Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
> > complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
> > table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
> > lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
> > yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
> > of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
> > phenomena that can be measured.
> >
> On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
To be fair to Einstein, Newton did not have all the answers either. Spiral arms, the rings of Saturn, the three body problem in 3D; all defy description in Newton's theory.

It would *seem* that skepticism is the strongest position a rational person can adopt, inasmuch as no theory can withstand it for long. So skepticism appears to have been design feature of the world. But there is no denying that there is a world. It is on this fact that skepticism impales itself. Worse, when skepticism investigates skepticism...

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:47:58 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
> > > years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
> > > Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
> > > complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
> > > table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
> > > lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
> > > yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
> > > of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
> > > phenomena that can be measured.
> > >
> > On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> To be fair to Einstein, Newton did not have all the answers either. Spiral arms, the rings of Saturn, the three body problem in 3D; all defy description in Newton's theory.
>
> It would *seem* that skepticism is the strongest position a rational person can adopt, inasmuch as no theory can withstand it for long. So skepticism appears to have been design feature of the world. But there is no denying that there is a world. It is on this fact that skepticism impales itself. Worse, when skepticism investigates skepticism...

You need to read more books. In a world famous contest, around 1859, Maxwell gain worldwide fame by solving the puzzle of Saturn
rings. Actually, he solved all three propositions about how were they formed and how come they were so stable.

Maxwell was just warming up.

"In 1859 James Clerk Maxwell published On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings. Maxwell was awarded the Adams Prize for his essay which contained many pages of detailed mathematical calculations. We give below an extract from the essay, essentially the beginning and end of the essay with around 60 pages of mathematical calculations omitted:-"

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Maxwell_Saturn/

Spiral arms formation was solved 55 years ago, at USA, by using a primitive computer model (1 MIPS only). Imagine how
does it work today on a supercomputer. Pure newtonian celestial mechanics.

LEARN.

3D N-Body models were numerically solved at ANY relevant space agency since late '80s. It only takes computer power and the
right newtonian model and algorithms.

Einstein is the midget of science, propped and hyped as Zelensky today.

It only takes time for masks of deception to fall, in both cases.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 6:56:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>The Dolan Imbecility....

I am not in the business of educating you and Richard Hertz. So, you two get to eat shit every time you open your mouths:

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-04/6-04.htm

On 4/11/2022 11:25 PM, patdolan wrote:

> I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the top student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO ONE can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.

If you can't do the common homework problem, why should anyone believe
you when you claim GR is wrong?
>
> Prove me wrong!

Prove yourself right.

Remember, I'm just here to watch all the kooks such as yourself be kooks.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 11:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the top student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO ONE can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.
> If you can't do the common homework problem, why should anyone believe
> you when you claim GR is wrong?
> >
> > Prove me wrong!
>
> Prove yourself right.
>
> Remember, I'm just here to watch all the kooks such as yourself be kooks.
This Veritasium link comes the closest to a GR method for calculating gravitational force (the thing Bodkin claims does not exist).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU&t=8m12s

Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square of the velocity through time...all handwaving that can be picked to pieces by anyone who has previously broken arithmetic.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan brainfarted

> Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square of the velocity through time...

The presenter doesn't say that, your Alzheimer addled brain is saying the above imbecility

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:49:23 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan brainfarted
> > Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square of the velocity through time...
> The presenter doesn't say that, your Alzheimer addled brain is saying the above imbecility
Young Veritasium says EXACTLY THAT. Of course he's been coached by far cleverer mathematicians than the dull denizens of this forum. It's also evident that this video is the first time this PhD has ever written a Christoffel symbol. And don't you just love this young chump's advise to his viewers "You don't have to worry about the details here. The point is...". The point is believe Big Science without question.

If you disagree Dono, then YOU tell us what 'tasium actually does say. Clarify it for us. I say neither you nor Roberts nor Bodkin will even do this..

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-7, imbecile pat dolan persevered:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:49:23 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan brainfarted
> > > Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square of the velocity through time...
> > The presenter doesn't say that, your Alzheimer addled brain is saying the above imbecility
> Young Veritasium says EXACTLY THAT.

No. he doesn't. Imbecile Pat Dolan does.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 11:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> I freely admit that I can't do it now, nor could I do it if I won the
>>> top student in GR from Stanford. I further state to this forum that NO
>>> ONE can do Tom Roberts' common homework problem and no one ever will.
>> If you can't do the common homework problem, why should anyone believe
>> you when you claim GR is wrong?
>>>
>>> Prove me wrong!
>>
>> Prove yourself right.
>>
>> Remember, I'm just here to watch all the kooks such as yourself be kooks.
> This Veritasium link comes the closest to a GR method for calculating
> gravitational force (the thing Bodkin claims does not exist).

What’s your reason for these fictions?

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU&t=8m12s
>
> Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square
> of the velocity through time...all handwaving that can be picked to
> pieces by anyone who has previously broken arithmetic.
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:38:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > "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)."
> > Cretionoid
> >
> > The steering happens AFTER the 38 us GR compliant CORRECTION. is means
> > Ththat the basic GPS correct functionality IS the test. Every second of
> > Thyour miserable existence.
>
> There must be a thousand variable that throw the atomic clocks off far
> more than a piddling 38 usec/day.

If that were the case a working GPS system would be impossible.

> Flying out of the Earth's shadow into the brilliant sunshine for one.

GPS sats are in high orbits, and they don't do that, most of the time.
An individual sat has two 'eclipse seasons' lasting about seven weeks.
They are in permanent sunshine for the rest of the year.
And there are always enough GPS sats in permanent sunshine.

Jan

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

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

No, they are well shielded.
And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?

> 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.

Not really. More like linear.

> Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> reason for increasing electronic clock rates?

No.

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

Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
(which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?

Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
and this has been verified to great accuracy
over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,

Jan

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
>>> years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
>>> Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
>>> complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
>>> table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
>>> lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
>>> yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
>>> of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
>>> phenomena that can be measured.
>>>
>> On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> To be fair to Einstein, Newton did not have all the answers either.
> Spiral arms, the rings of Saturn, the three body problem in 3D; all defy
> description in Newton's theory.
>
> It would *seem* that skepticism is the strongest position a rational
> person can adopt, inasmuch as no theory can withstand it for long.

I’m not sure what the point of that is. You’d spend your effort more
constructively by formulating an alternative that you can do real
calculations with.

> So skepticism appears to have been design feature of the world. But
> there is no denying that there is a world. It is on this fact that
> skepticism impales itself. Worse, when skepticism investigates skepticism...
>

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

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
> > electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
> > electrostatic field?
>
> No, they are well shielded.
> And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
> who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
> are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
>
> > 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.
>
> Not really. More like linear.
>
> > Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> > reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
>
> No.
>
> > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
>
> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
>
> Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> and this has been verified to great accuracy
> over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
>
> Jan

Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more intelligent than I actually am. You should try this too. Remember how gullible you were when it came "those scientists" and their special relativity qua the solar system? How you stalked off after being made a fool? Eurohenry was so destroyed that he left the forum forever. Looks like you are in need of another dose of humility. I'm happy to oblige.

"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)."

http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 5:15:35 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
> >>> years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
> >>> Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
> >>> complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
> >>> table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
> >>> lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
> >>> yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
> >>> of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
> >>> phenomena that can be measured.
> >>>
> >> On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > To be fair to Einstein, Newton did not have all the answers either.
> > Spiral arms, the rings of Saturn, the three body problem in 3D; all defy
> > description in Newton's theory.
> >
> > It would *seem* that skepticism is the strongest position a rational
> > person can adopt, inasmuch as no theory can withstand it for long.
> I’m not sure what the point of that is. You’d spend your effort more
> constructively by formulating an alternative that you can do real
> calculations with.

I give this some thought every now and then, Bodkin. But the efforts of skepticism ALWAYS succeed. Whereas the efforts of all theory builders lasts but a season. Einstein's theory was finished by 1907. His two relativities have been on artificial life-support ever since.

> > So skepticism appears to have been design feature of the world. But
> > there is no denying that there is a world. It is on this fact that
> > skepticism impales itself. Worse, when skepticism investigates skepticism...
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 5:15:35 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been 14 hours now Tom Roberts. It might as well be 14 days, 14
>>>>> years, 14 centuries. No one; not you, not Bodkin, not Townes Olson, not
>>>>> Paul Anderson, not Dirk, not even gullible Paul Alsing has, nor ever will
>>>>> complete the "common homework problem" of calculating the force on a
>>>>> table tabletop produces by a 1 kilo brick using the math of GR. I now
>>>>> lend my name to this phenomenon: The Dolan GR Challenge....or better
>>>>> yet...the Dolan Gravitational Theory Condition, to wit, any viable theory
>>>>> of Gravity must be able to account for any and all gravitational
>>>>> phenomena that can be measured.
>>>>>
>>>> On demand, on Usenet, for people otherwise too lazy to sit up.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> To be fair to Einstein, Newton did not have all the answers either.
>>> Spiral arms, the rings of Saturn, the three body problem in 3D; all defy
>>> description in Newton's theory.
>>>
>>> It would *seem* that skepticism is the strongest position a rational
>>> person can adopt, inasmuch as no theory can withstand it for long.
>> I’m not sure what the point of that is. You’d spend your effort more
>> constructively by formulating an alternative that you can do real
>> calculations with.
>
> I give this some thought every now and then, Bodkin. But the efforts of
> skepticism ALWAYS succeed. Whereas the efforts of all theory builders
> lasts but a season.

This seems like deciding between being an architect or an advocate of rust.

> Einstein's theory was finished by 1907. His two relativities have been
> on artificial life-support ever since.

Well, except for all those relativistic field theories since.

>
>
>>> So skepticism appears to have been design feature of the world. But
>>> there is no denying that there is a world. It is on this fact that
>>> skepticism impales itself. Worse, when skepticism investigates skepticism...
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 4/12/2022 2:12 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:49:23 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan brainfarted
>>> Supposedly you calculate force by multiplying the curvature by the square of the velocity through time...
>> The presenter doesn't say that, your Alzheimer addled brain is saying the above imbecility

> Young Veritasium says EXACTLY THAT.

No he doesn't. He's talking about acceleration.

On 4/12/2022 8:19 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
>>> electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
>>> electrostatic field?
>>
>> No, they are well shielded.
>> And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
>> who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
>> are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not really. More like linear.
>>
>>> Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
>>> reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
>>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
>>
>> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
>> And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
>> (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
>>
>> Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
>> and this has been verified to great accuracy
>> over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
>> and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
>>
>> Jan
>
> Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more intelligent than I actually am.

You apparently succeeded, because you sure appear to be really stooopid!

> "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)."

Again, all the drift is in the tens of nanosecond range, and is done
after the GR correction.

Also, your quote states the clocks are steered to be within 1
microsecond, yet GR effects are 38 microseconds each and every day? You
haven't thought that through, have you.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:29:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/12/2022 8:19 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
> >>> electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
> >>> electrostatic field?
> >>
> >> No, they are well shielded.
> >> And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
> >> who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
> >> are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Not really. More like linear.
> >>
> >>> Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> >>> reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> >>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> >> And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> >> (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> >>
> >> Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> >> and this has been verified to great accuracy
> >> over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> >> and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more intelligent than I actually am.
> You apparently succeeded, because you sure appear to be really stooopid!
> > "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)."
> Again, all the drift is in the tens of nanosecond range, and is done
> after the GR correction.
>
> Also, your quote states the clocks are steered to be within 1
> microsecond, yet GR effects are 38 microseconds each and every day? You
> haven't thought that through, have you.

It's YOUR quote from YOUR link. But let me think it through for you, chump.. It stands to reason that each bird must be "steered" at least 38 times per day. Obviously they are steered far more often. Because, obviously, there are other factors responsible for far greater drift than 38 usec per day. And please don't ask me to tell you what those factors might be until you have held a soldering gun in your delicate little paw.

The point being that relativistic considerations have always been swamped by other engineering considerations when it comes to keeping time on a GPS satellite. But thanks for the research. Your link to the 1978 document appears to be the only extant experimental for a 38.6 usec per day de-diltation during free fall. And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never been duplicated.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
> > > electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
> > > electrostatic field?
> >
> > No, they are well shielded.
> > And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
> > who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
> > are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Not really. More like linear.
> >
> > > Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> > > reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> >
> > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> > And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> > (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> >
> > Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> > and this has been verified to great accuracy
> > over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> > and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more
> intelligent than I actually am.

Indeed, I guess you cannot really be as stupid as you try to look like.

> You should try this too. Remember how
> gullible you were when it came "those scientists" and their special
> relativity qua the solar system? How you stalked off after being made a
> fool?

You really must enlighten me.
And FYI, I never 'stalk off'.
Unlike most of the nutters I don't live here.
You'll have to do with an occasional appearance,
on selected subjects,

Jan

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 06:29:13 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/12/2022 8:19 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
> >>> electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
> >>> electrostatic field?
> >>
> >> No, they are well shielded.
> >> And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
> >> who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
> >> are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Not really. More like linear.
> >>
> >>> Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> >>> reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >>> The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> >>> various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> >> And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> >> (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> >>
> >> Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> >> and this has been verified to great accuracy
> >> over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> >> and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more intelligent than I actually am.
> You apparently succeeded, because you sure appear to be really stooopid!
> > "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)."
> Again, all the drift is in the tens of nanosecond range, and is done
> after the GR correction.

Stupid Mike, correcting clocks when they're desynchronizing
is a common sense prejudice, refuted by Michelson-Morleey
experiment. Youir idiot guru has discovered, that correcting
clocks is evil!!! It ruins the Holy Symmetry!

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:35:16 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks, indeed all
> > > > electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate with decreasing
> > > > electrostatic field?
> > >
> > > No, they are well shielded.
> > > And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist
> > > who invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now
> > > are on the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Not really. More like linear.
> > >
> > > > Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> > > > reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > > > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator..
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> > > And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> > > (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> > >
> > > Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> > > and this has been verified to great accuracy
> > > over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> > > and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more
> > intelligent than I actually am.
> Indeed, I guess you cannot really be as stupid as you try to look like.
> > You should try this too. Remember how
> > gullible you were when it came "those scientists" and their special
> > relativity qua the solar system? How you stalked off after being made a
> > fool?
> You really must enlighten me.
> And FYI, I never 'stalk off'.
> Unlike most of the nutters I don't live here.
> You'll have to do with an occasional appearance,
> on selected subjects,
>
> Jan
J. J., I have confused you with JanPB. But you are as much a gullible fool.. You have accepted SR uncritically and understand little to nothing of its shortcomings. How do I know? Your most substantive points of attack, as is so common to your ilk, are grammar, spelling, typos and other trivialities. For instance, you actually quibble over an "f" at the end of Van de Graaff's name. The earmark of a second stringer to be sure.

In future I am happy to, and look forward to, waltzing you around all the aspects of the relativities, special and general, that you have yet to comprehend.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:35:16 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks,
> > > > > indeed all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate
> > > > > with decreasing electrostatic field?
> > > >
> > > > No, they are well shielded.
> > > > And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist who
> > > > invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now are on
> > > > the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. More like linear.
> > > >
> > > > > Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> > > > > reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > > > > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> > > > And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> > > > (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> > > >
> > > > Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> > > > and this has been verified to great accuracy
> > > > over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> > > > and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more
> > > intelligent than I actually am.
> > Indeed, I guess you cannot really be as stupid as you try to look like.
> > > You should try this too. Remember how
> > > gullible you were when it came "those scientists" and their special
> > > relativity qua the solar system? How you stalked off after being made a
> > > fool?
> > You really must enlighten me.
> > And FYI, I never 'stalk off'.
> > Unlike most of the nutters I don't live here.
> > You'll have to do with an occasional appearance,
> > on selected subjects,
> >
> > Jan
> J. J., I have confused you with JanPB.

OK, excuses accepted, even if only implicit.
I'll leave the follow-up to JanPB,
who is obviously quite capable of dealing with your imaginings.

> But you are as much a gullible fool. You have accepted SR uncritically
> and understand little to nothing of its shortcomings.

There are no (known) shortcomings. The problems are all with you.

> How do I know?
> Your most substantive points of attack, as is so common to your ilk, are
> grammar, spelling, typos and other trivialities. For instance, you
> actually quibble over an "f" at the end of Van de Graaff's name. The
> earmark of a second stringer to be sure.

Your stupidity.
The generator one and derived rock band spell their names differently.
Anyone who is into physics and rock knows this,
and knows that caution is necessary.
Aparently you are knowledgeable about neither.

> In future I am happy to, and look forward to, waltzing you around all the
> aspects of the relativities, special and general, that you have yet to
> comprehend.

"It takes two to tango",

Jan

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 18:24:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:35:16 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 2:27:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I lend my name to the following hypothesis: Do atomic clocks,
> > > > > > indeed all electronically based clocks, increase their tick rate
> > > > > > with decreasing electrostatic field?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, they are well shielded.
> > > > > And just curious: do you really believe that those scientist who
> > > > > invented, built, and operated atomic clocks for 70 years now are on
> > > > > the level of stupid amateurs like you?
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really. More like linear.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is this inverse square reduction of electrostatic field the
> > > > > > reason for increasing electronic clock rates?
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The Dolan Hypothesis is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at
> > > > > > various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense. Atomic clocks are well shielded against external disturbances.
> > > > > And oops oops: Van de Graaff generator, not a rock band.
> > > > > (which you also oopsed) Can't you get anything right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that: the clock rate varies with the gravitational potential,
> > > > > and this has been verified to great accuracy
> > > > > over fifty years of clock operation in many standards labs,
> > > > > and by comparing them at the BIPM to compute TAI,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Jan, I consider myself quite successful at never trying to appear more
> > > > intelligent than I actually am.
> > > Indeed, I guess you cannot really be as stupid as you try to look like.
> > > > You should try this too. Remember how
> > > > gullible you were when it came "those scientists" and their special
> > > > relativity qua the solar system? How you stalked off after being made a
> > > > fool?
> > > You really must enlighten me.
> > > And FYI, I never 'stalk off'.
> > > Unlike most of the nutters I don't live here.
> > > You'll have to do with an occasional appearance,
> > > on selected subjects,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > J. J., I have confused you with JanPB.
> OK, excuses accepted, even if only implicit.
> I'll leave the follow-up to JanPB,
> who is obviously quite capable of dealing with your imaginings.

Sure, sure, he's incredibly capable. He knows even
that syntax shmyntax!