On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:24:12 AM UTC-7, 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.
> > 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.
J. J., I was hoping you'd type that. Ya know, when I was new to this forum I remember a hipster relativistic who in addition to rock & relativity added MMA skills. Oh, he'd probably never stood in front of another man in a ring without wetting his trunks. But he did like to post videos of hizself kicking bags, jumping up walls, etc. You remind me a lot of him.

I'm going to begin your schooling in your very own "new conversation" thread. You should be honored. And welcome to the forum.

> > 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 4/11/22 12:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am just describing
a) how modern physics in general, and relativity in particular,
models various physical phenomena
and
b) experimental tests of those models.

> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> naked one.

A naked atomic clock won't work if you apply an external electric field
to it, unless the field is so small that it is useless. Indeed the
earth's tiny magnetic field would be enough to disrupt some designs (so
they cancel it with Helmholtz coils and shielding)....

> The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time
> curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous,

No, they aren't. What is preposterous is your claim here, without any
justification or understanding of the issues.

Note: they don't "detect time curvature", they measure gravitational
redshift, and they support their observations with a detailed error
analysis.

> [...] The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth
> is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite
> plane.

This is not true for sufficiently good measuring accuracy, and the
optical clocks have exquisite measurement accuracy.

BTW it is also not true when one considers tides.

But it's really irrelevant, because you said this only to lead into a
false claim:
> So there can be no detectable time dilation [...] between the top of
> a step ladder and the surface of the earth.

Even if one accepts your premise, this claim is FALSE. The
"gravitational time dilation" is proportional to the difference in
gravitational POTENTIAL between the two clocks, and that is nonzero even
for a constant gravitational field (what is constant is the Newtonian
gravitational force, not the potential, which cannot possibly be constant).

[I am speaking loosely to not get bogged down in
irrelevant details.]

> 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.

You are VERY confused. "38 usec/day" is for the GPS, not the Voyagers.
The Voyagers' nuclear batteries are still producing power, but at
reduced rates. The clocks aboard these spacecraft are not sufficiently
accurate to measure "gravitational time dilation", and were not
configured to do so.

[I will resume ignoring you stupid and ignorant ranting and raving.]

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:04:22 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/11/22 12:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> > assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove.
>
> I am not trying to prove anything. I am just describing
> a) how modern physics in general, and relativity in particular,
> models various physical phenomena
> and
> b) experimental tests of those models.
>
> > Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> > naked one.
>
> A naked atomic clock won't work if you apply an external electric field
> to it, unless the field is so small that it is useless. Indeed the
> earth's tiny magnetic field would be enough to disrupt some designs (so
> they cancel it with Helmholtz coils and shielding)....
>
> > The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time
> > curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous,
>
> No, they aren't. What is preposterous is your claim here, without any
> justification or understanding of the issues.
>
> Note: they don't "detect time curvature", they measure gravitational
> redshift, and they support their observations with a detailed error
> analysis.
>
> > [...] The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth
> > is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite
> > plane.
>
> This is not true for sufficiently good measuring accuracy, and the
> optical clocks have exquisite measurement accuracy.
>
> BTW it is also not true when one considers tides.
>
> But it's really irrelevant, because you said this only to lead into a
> false claim:
> > So there can be no detectable time dilation [...] between the top of
> > a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>
> Even if one accepts your premise, this claim is FALSE. The
> "gravitational time dilation" is proportional to the difference in
> gravitational POTENTIAL between the two clocks, and that is nonzero even
> for a constant gravitational field (what is constant is the Newtonian
> gravitational force, not the potential, which cannot possibly be constant).
>
> [I am speaking loosely to not get bogged down in
> irrelevant details.]
>
> > 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.
>
> You are VERY confused. "38 usec/day" is for the GPS, not the Voyagers.
> The Voyagers' nuclear batteries are still producing power, but at
> reduced rates. The clocks aboard these spacecraft are not sufficiently
> accurate to measure "gravitational time dilation", and were not
> configured to do so.
>
> [I will resume ignoring you stupid and ignorant ranting and raving.]
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts, thank you for the effort you have put forth in this reply. I now believe that atomic clocks are indeed measuring a change in gravitational potential. As I recall, I believed this in the first place when I first learned of the 38 usec from reliable sources years ago.

BUT does a gravitationally caused change in the tick rate of a material clock--composed entirely of electromagnetic particles interacting with each other--equate to an actual change in the flow of oh-so immaterial time? The flow of time, say from the biological standpoint. How can that be proved?

Might a material atomic clock respond to changing gravitational potential in the same way that a material spring with a weight attached responds? The same spring with the same 100g weight has different extensions on the surface of the earth and on the surface of the earth. Just as the atomic clock has different tick rates on the surface of the moon and the surface of the earth. But does this prove anything about the flow of time in the any part of the universe?

On 4/11/22 12:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:36:28 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any
>> other type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject
>> to the way the time interval between them is measured, which is the
>> source of all types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
>>
>> [To measure the time interval between two signals, a clock must
>> project the interval between the signals onto itself. That depends
>> on the (null) trajectories of the signals, the trajectory of the
>> clock, and the spacetime metric at the location of the
>> measurement.]
>
> But this is plain heresy, coming from a pure breed relativist.

No, it is just standard General Relativity. And I am not a "pure breed
relativist", I am just a physicist who has studied and understands
relativity, and is willing to explain it to others.

> Then, it comes to be that t' = t for every clock, yet Δt' ≠ Δt when
> signals are exchanged!

Hmmm. "t" and "t'" are symbols normally used for COORDINATE times in
inertial frames. These are most definitely not equal, unless the two
frames are co-moving.

What it actually means is that the proper time of any (good) clock
always advances at the same rate, one second per second -- a clock's
indicator advances by 1 second for each additional second of its elapsed
proper time. (Yes, this is tautological.)

> This means that "proper time" doesn't exist by itself, and that only
> manifestates indirectly when any two given clocks exchange data with
> electromagnetic signaling?

No. Not even close. It means that the proper time of a given clock
exists by itself, depending ONLY on the clock, and (implicitly) on its
trajectory through spacetime. IOW: the proper time of an object is
intrinsic to that object.

> Or did you think about signaling by using gravitational wave
> carriers?

Hopeless. But we do know that in GR, gravitational waves travel with
speed c relative to any locally-inertial frame, just like light in
vacuum; we also know that for the single case of "multi-messenger
astronomy", the gravitational wave did indeed travel with the same speed
as the co-traveling light wave, to very high accuracy (implying they
also followed the same path, also as predicted by GR).

> [for the GPS] CALCULATED 38.5 usec/day, not measured.

Again you merely display your personal ignorance. The time difference of
unmodified GPS satellite clocks relative to GPS time (i.e. on earth's
geoid) has been measured zillions of times by many labs around the world.

> [The Schwarzschild] metric contemplate an universe VOID OF MATTER AND
> ENERGY, except for a single point-like, non-charged, non-rotating
> mass that represented the Sun. Even Mercury (its first application)
> was a TEST PARTICLE with no mass.

Actually the Schw. metric represents ANY spherically symmetric
uncharged, non-rotating mass; not just the sun. Indeed it is an
excellent APPROXIMATION for the sun, for earth, and for any other
planet, but only near the surface (far away, other planets' gravitation
can be important).

> But PROPAGANDA says, at every written book on GR, that such metric is
> the real deal and that explain everything because it has embedded
> special relativity formulations.

This is complete NONSENSE, and the "propaganda" is yours; this merely
indicates your personal ignorance. Clearly you have never actually read
any of those books. The Schw. metric is an APPROXIMATION whose validity
depends on the validity of its assumptions.

Note also that each and every solution of GR "has embedded special
relativity formulations", because SR is the local limit at any point in
any such solution.

[I will resume ignoring your stupid and ignorant ranting and raving.]

Tom Roberts

On 4/13/2022 8:10 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:04:22 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/11/22 12:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
>>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove.
>>
>> I am not trying to prove anything. I am just describing
>> a) how modern physics in general, and relativity in particular,
>> models various physical phenomena
>> and
>> b) experimental tests of those models.
>>
>>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
>>> naked one.
>>
>> A naked atomic clock won't work if you apply an external electric field
>> to it, unless the field is so small that it is useless. Indeed the
>> earth's tiny magnetic field would be enough to disrupt some designs (so
>> they cancel it with Helmholtz coils and shielding)....
>>
>>> The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time
>>> curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous,
>>
>> No, they aren't. What is preposterous is your claim here, without any
>> justification or understanding of the issues.
>>
>> Note: they don't "detect time curvature", they measure gravitational
>> redshift, and they support their observations with a detailed error
>> analysis.
>>
>>> [...] The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth
>>> is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite
>>> plane.
>>
>> This is not true for sufficiently good measuring accuracy, and the
>> optical clocks have exquisite measurement accuracy.
>>
>> BTW it is also not true when one considers tides.
>>
>> But it's really irrelevant, because you said this only to lead into a
>> false claim:
>>> So there can be no detectable time dilation [...] between the top of
>>> a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>>
>> Even if one accepts your premise, this claim is FALSE. The
>> "gravitational time dilation" is proportional to the difference in
>> gravitational POTENTIAL between the two clocks, and that is nonzero even
>> for a constant gravitational field (what is constant is the Newtonian
>> gravitational force, not the potential, which cannot possibly be constant).
>>
>> [I am speaking loosely to not get bogged down in
>> irrelevant details.]
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You are VERY confused. "38 usec/day" is for the GPS, not the Voyagers.
>> The Voyagers' nuclear batteries are still producing power, but at
>> reduced rates. The clocks aboard these spacecraft are not sufficiently
>> accurate to measure "gravitational time dilation", and were not
>> configured to do so.
>>
>> [I will resume ignoring you stupid and ignorant ranting and raving.]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Tom Roberts, thank you for the effort you have put forth in this reply. I now believe that atomic clocks are indeed measuring a change in gravitational potential. As I recall, I believed this in the first place when I first learned of the 38 usec from reliable sources years ago.
>
> BUT does a gravitationally caused change in the tick rate of a material clock--composed entirely of electromagnetic particles interacting with each other--equate to an actual change in the flow of oh-so immaterial time? The flow of time, say from the biological standpoint. How can that be proved?

GR predicts (and the first postulate requires) each clock ticks at its
own correct rate.

It's only when comparing DIFFERENCES in potential (or velocities) that a
difference in clock rates is detected.
>
> Might a material atomic clock respond to changing gravitational potential in the same way that a material spring with a weight attached responds? The same spring with the same 100g weight has different extensions on the surface of the earth and on the surface of the earth.

Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
force/acceleration and gravitational potential. The mass on the spring
response to the gravitational force, not gravitational potential.

> Just as the atomic clock has different tick rates on the surface of the moon and the surface of the earth.

Because of different gravitational potentials, not forces.

> But does this prove anything about the flow of time in the any part of the universe?

The thing we can measure is differences in clock rates between two
objects at different gravitational potentials, and see if it matches
theory (it does).

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:34:33 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >
> >> You've had plenty of time to provide a link to the solution of the
> >> "common homework problem" Tom Roberts. As I predicted, there will be no
> >> answer from you. This means I have caught you in another lie, Tom
> >> Roberts. And you a credentialed relativist to boot.
> >
> > Classic pattern of the self-rationalizing crank:
> > "If they don't respond to me, then this is implicit agreement, and this
> > proves that I am right. If they do respond to me, then this means my
> > views are worth paying attention to, and this proves that I am right."
> > - Paul Draper
> >
> Ah, the fabled Draper.

Yeah, he is very quotable...

On 4/13/2022 1:29 AM, patdolan wrote:
> 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.

It's a quote you mined (and misinterpreted) from a link I gave.

> 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.

Which is absurd. They are designed to be able to go a couple days with
NO steering and remain within spec. Besides, there are portions of
their orbits where the satellites are out of range of uplink stations
for a few hours, while 38 "steerings" a day is more often than once
every 38 minutes. (also the bird would drift substantially between
steerings).

Amusingly your claim they'd need adjustments 38 times/day simultaneously
admits to GR time dilation and denies it. If there was NO GR time
dilation, the clock would be set to the equivalent of 9192631770 just
like all clocks everywhere else and transmit at 10.23 MHz, not at
10.22999999543 MHz.

> Obviously they are steered far more often.

Obviously not, when they are out of range of any uplinks for hours at a
time and designed to stay within spec for days at a time with no
adjustments.

> Because, obviously, there are other factors responsible for far greater drift than 38 usec per day.

No, the factors are in the range of several tens of nanoseconds per day,
much smaller than 38,000 nS/day.

> And please don't ask me to tell you what those factors might be

OK, I won't ask you for those nonexistent huge adjustment factors.

> until you have held a soldering gun in your delicate little paw.

You should have seen me as a teenager, constantly tinkering with
electronics with a soldering iron going. Not as much now but I still do.
>
> The point being that relativistic considerations have always been swamped by other engineering considerations when it comes to keeping time on a GPS satellite.

Nope. If factors needing adjustments "swamped" the 38 uS/day factor,
the GPS system would be completely useless. Remember, ignoring time
dilation would push positioning off about 11 km/day, each and every day.

> 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

The GPS systems still has the 38uS/day adjustment, so every time the
nice lady voice says to turn right on your GPS app, it's proven. The
GPS designers were so confident with that initial experimental result
none of the following satellites had that "Newton/Einstein" switch.
Besides an experiment only has to be done correctly ONCE.

> during free fall.

Why free fall?

> And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never been duplicated.

Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
each and every time.

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:37:33 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 1:29 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's a quote you mined (and misinterpreted) from a link I gave.
>
> > 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.
>
> Which is absurd. They are designed to be able to go a couple days with
> NO steering and remain within spec. Besides, there are portions of
> their orbits where the satellites are out of range of uplink stations
> for a few hours, while 38 "steerings" a day is more often than once
> every 38 minutes. (also the bird would drift substantially between
> steerings).
>
> Amusingly your claim they'd need adjustments 38 times/day simultaneously
> admits to GR time dilation and denies it. If there was NO GR time
> dilation, the clock would be set to the equivalent of 9192631770 just
> like all clocks everywhere else and transmit at 10.23 MHz, not at
> 10.22999999543 MHz.
>
> > Obviously they are steered far more often.
>
> Obviously not, when they are out of range of any uplinks for hours at a
> time and designed to stay within spec for days at a time with no
> adjustments.
>
> > Because, obviously, there are other factors responsible for far greater drift than 38 usec per day.
>
> No, the factors are in the range of several tens of nanoseconds per day,
> much smaller than 38,000 nS/day.
>
> > And please don't ask me to tell you what those factors might be
>
> OK, I won't ask you for those nonexistent huge adjustment factors.
>
> > until you have held a soldering gun in your delicate little paw.
>
> You should have seen me as a teenager, constantly tinkering with
> electronics with a soldering iron going. Not as much now but I still do.
> >
> > The point being that relativistic considerations have always been swamped by other engineering considerations when it comes to keeping time on a GPS satellite.
>
> Nope. If factors needing adjustments "swamped" the 38 uS/day factor,
> the GPS system would be completely useless. Remember, ignoring time
> dilation would push positioning off about 11 km/day, each and every day.
>
> > 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
>
> The GPS systems still has the 38uS/day adjustment, so every time the
> nice lady voice says to turn right on your GPS app, it's proven. The
> GPS designers were so confident with that initial experimental result
> none of the following satellites had that "Newton/Einstein" switch.
> Besides an experiment only has to be done correctly ONCE.
>
> > during free fall.
>
> Why free fall?
>
> > And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never been duplicated.
>
> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> each and every time.
Links to other eclipse data please, with the exception of the amateur Brum-whateverthehellhisnameis-burg, who is a fraud.

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 23:04:22 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/11/22 12:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> > assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove.
>
> I am not trying to prove anything.

I'm just stating the obvious: we are FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
Which is, of course, the way of our beloved Giant Guru and his
obedient minion Tom Roberts.

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 04:13:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 8:10 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:04:22 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 4/11/22 12:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
> >>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove.
> >>
> >> I am not trying to prove anything. I am just describing
> >> a) how modern physics in general, and relativity in particular,
> >> models various physical phenomena
> >> and
> >> b) experimental tests of those models.
> >>
> >>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
> >>> naked one.
> >>
> >> A naked atomic clock won't work if you apply an external electric field
> >> to it, unless the field is so small that it is useless. Indeed the
> >> earth's tiny magnetic field would be enough to disrupt some designs (so
> >> they cancel it with Helmholtz coils and shielding)....
> >>
> >>> The claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time
> >>> curvature between a few inches of altitude are preposterous,
> >>
> >> No, they aren't. What is preposterous is your claim here, without any
> >> justification or understanding of the issues.
> >>
> >> Note: they don't "detect time curvature", they measure gravitational
> >> redshift, and they support their observations with a detailed error
> >> analysis.
> >>
> >>> [...] The earth's gravitational field near the surface of the earth
> >>> is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by an infinite
> >>> plane.
> >>
> >> This is not true for sufficiently good measuring accuracy, and the
> >> optical clocks have exquisite measurement accuracy.
> >>
> >> BTW it is also not true when one considers tides.
> >>
> >> But it's really irrelevant, because you said this only to lead into a
> >> false claim:
> >>> So there can be no detectable time dilation [...] between the top of
> >>> a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> >>
> >> Even if one accepts your premise, this claim is FALSE. The
> >> "gravitational time dilation" is proportional to the difference in
> >> gravitational POTENTIAL between the two clocks, and that is nonzero even
> >> for a constant gravitational field (what is constant is the Newtonian
> >> gravitational force, not the potential, which cannot possibly be constant).
> >>
> >> [I am speaking loosely to not get bogged down in
> >> irrelevant details.]
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> You are VERY confused. "38 usec/day" is for the GPS, not the Voyagers.
> >> The Voyagers' nuclear batteries are still producing power, but at
> >> reduced rates. The clocks aboard these spacecraft are not sufficiently
> >> accurate to measure "gravitational time dilation", and were not
> >> configured to do so.
> >>
> >> [I will resume ignoring you stupid and ignorant ranting and raving.]
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > Tom Roberts, thank you for the effort you have put forth in this reply. I now believe that atomic clocks are indeed measuring a change in gravitational potential. As I recall, I believed this in the first place when I first learned of the 38 usec from reliable sources years ago.
> >
> > BUT does a gravitationally caused change in the tick rate of a material clock--composed entirely of electromagnetic particles interacting with each other--equate to an actual change in the flow of oh-so immaterial time? The flow of time, say from the biological standpoint. How can that be proved?
> GR predicts (and the first postulate requires) each clock ticks at its
> own correct rate.

And your Shit predicts incorrectly - a clock of a GPS ground
base ticks at 9 192 631 770 and a clock of a GPS satellite
ticks at 9 192 631 774. Common sense was warning your
idiot guru.

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 04:37:33 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Amusingly your claim they'd need adjustments 38 times/day simultaneously
> admits to GR time dilation and denies it. If there was NO GR time
> dilation, the clock would be set to the equivalent of 9192631770 just

Oppositely, stupid Mike: if it was set to 9192631770 as
your idiot gurus insist - time (as defined, time is what
clocks indicate) would dilate. Sane people, however,
piss at your idiot gurus, their Holiest Postualte and
their ISO idiocy and have set them to 9192631774,
so GPS time (i.e. what GPS clocks indicate) is - t'=t.

On 4/13/2022 11:42 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:37:33 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 1:29 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It's a quote you mined (and misinterpreted) from a link I gave.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which is absurd. They are designed to be able to go a couple days with
>> NO steering and remain within spec. Besides, there are portions of
>> their orbits where the satellites are out of range of uplink stations
>> for a few hours, while 38 "steerings" a day is more often than once
>> every 38 minutes. (also the bird would drift substantially between
>> steerings).
>>
>> Amusingly your claim they'd need adjustments 38 times/day simultaneously
>> admits to GR time dilation and denies it. If there was NO GR time
>> dilation, the clock would be set to the equivalent of 9192631770 just
>> like all clocks everywhere else and transmit at 10.23 MHz, not at
>> 10.22999999543 MHz.
>>
>>> Obviously they are steered far more often.
>>
>> Obviously not, when they are out of range of any uplinks for hours at a
>> time and designed to stay within spec for days at a time with no
>> adjustments.
>>
>>> Because, obviously, there are other factors responsible for far greater drift than 38 usec per day.
>>
>> No, the factors are in the range of several tens of nanoseconds per day,
>> much smaller than 38,000 nS/day.
>>
>>> And please don't ask me to tell you what those factors might be
>>
>> OK, I won't ask you for those nonexistent huge adjustment factors.
>>
>>> until you have held a soldering gun in your delicate little paw.
>>
>> You should have seen me as a teenager, constantly tinkering with
>> electronics with a soldering iron going. Not as much now but I still do.
>>>
>>> The point being that relativistic considerations have always been swamped by other engineering considerations when it comes to keeping time on a GPS satellite.
>>
>> Nope. If factors needing adjustments "swamped" the 38 uS/day factor,
>> the GPS system would be completely useless. Remember, ignoring time
>> dilation would push positioning off about 11 km/day, each and every day.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> The GPS systems still has the 38uS/day adjustment, so every time the
>> nice lady voice says to turn right on your GPS app, it's proven. The
>> GPS designers were so confident with that initial experimental result
>> none of the following satellites had that "Newton/Einstein" switch.
>> Besides an experiment only has to be done correctly ONCE.
>>
>>> during free fall.
>>
>> Why free fall?
>>
>>> And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never been duplicated.
>>
>> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
>> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
>> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
>> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
>> each and every time.
> Links to other eclipse data please, with the exception of the amateur Brum-whateverthehellhisnameis-burg, who is a fraud.

What? You don't know how to use Google?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment mentions a repeat of
the Eddington Experiment in 1922, as do many other websites. While the
1919 eclipse had just a few stars measured, the 1922 eclipse measured
3,000 stars.

Also:

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20180821a/full/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/total-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago-proved-einsteins-general-relativity-180972278/

but you'll ignore these because they mention Donald Bruns, possibly the
"amateur" you mentioned, and whom you consider to be a "fraud" because
he successfully repeated the Eddington Experiment during the 2017 eclipse.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> > And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
> > been duplicated.

> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> each and every time.

Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,

Jan

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:15:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > > And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
> > > been duplicated.
>
> > Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> > eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> > eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> > sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> > each and every time.
> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better

A pity that according to your Shit a light path in vacumum
is always a straight/geodesic line.
As said earlier - even such an idiot as you are isn't really
stupid enough to treat Einstein 's non-euclidean madness
seriously, and that's where "gravitational light deflection"
comes from.

On 4/14/2022 5:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:15:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
>>>> been duplicated.
>>
>>> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
>>> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
>>> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
>>> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
>>> each and every time.
>> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
>> accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
>> No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,

Yes, eclipses first became unnecessary when they started using
radioastronomy tracking quasars and when satellites could block the sun
on their own.

>
> A pity that according to your Shit a light path in vacumum
> is always a straight/geodesic line.

Straight or geodesic, janitor? I know in your vodka-induced drunkenness
there's no such thing as a straight line, but which is it? And do you
know what either term means in mathematics?

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 16:25:27 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > A pity that according to your Shit a light path in vacumum
> > is always a straight/geodesic line.
> Straight or geodesic, janitor? I know in your vodka-induced drunkenness
> there's no such thing as a straight line, but which is it? And do you
> know what either term means in mathematics?

Yes, stupid Mike, in opposition to you and most
of your fellow cultists I do.
And do you know which ones were mentioned
in Lobachevsky's V-th axiom?

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:15:46 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > > And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
> > > been duplicated.
>
> > Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> > eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> > eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> > sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> > each and every time.
> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
>
> Jan
There is no GAIA data.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:25:27 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/14/2022 5:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:15:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
> >>>> been duplicated.
> >>
> >>> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> >>> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> >>> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> >>> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> >>> each and every time.
> >> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> >> accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> >> No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
> Yes, eclipses first became unnecessary when they started using
> radioastronomy tracking quasars and when satellites could block the sun
> on their own.

There is no data. You refer to hypothetical thought experiments that morphed into actual completed experiments through the process of science folklore. You will find no data.
> >
> > A pity that according to your Shit a light path in vacumum
> > is always a straight/geodesic line.
> Straight or geodesic, janitor? I know in your vodka-induced drunkenness
> there's no such thing as a straight line, but which is it? And do you
> know what either term means in mathematics?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:25:27 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/14/2022 5:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:15:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
>>>>>> been duplicated.
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
>>>>> eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
>>>>> eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
>>>>> sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
>>>>> each and every time.
>>>> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
>>>> accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
>>>> No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
>> Yes, eclipses first became unnecessary when they started using
>> radioastronomy tracking quasars and when satellites could block the sun
>> on their own.
>
> There is no data. You refer to hypothetical thought experiments that
> morphed into actual completed experiments through the process of science
> folklore. You will find no data.

It’s all a massive conspiracy! Prove me wrong!

Scientists do nothing but sit all day in their offices and make up
fictional papers and publish them. Prove me wrong!

Nothing that scientists do or claim is trustworthy and it’s all better
summarily dismissed. Prove me wrong!

>>>
>>> A pity that according to your Shit a light path in vacumum
>>> is always a straight/geodesic line.
>> Straight or geodesic, janitor? I know in your vodka-induced drunkenness
>> there's no such thing as a straight line, but which is it? And do you
>> know what either term means in mathematics?
>

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

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, pat dolan lied:
> > Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> > accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> > No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
> >
> > Jan
> There is no GAIA data.

Caught you lying, Pattycakes

https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Data_processing/chap_cu3ast/sec_cu3ast_intro/ssec_cu3ast_intro_relativity.html

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, pat dolan lied:
> > > Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> > > accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> > > No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > There is no GAIA data.
> Caught you lying, Pattycakes
>
> https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Data_processing/chap_cu3ast/sec_cu3ast_intro/ssec_cu3ast_intro_relativity.html
There's no data there, Dono. Only hypothetical thought experiments. Just like I said

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-7, crank pat dolan lied again:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, pat dolan lied:
> > > > Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> > > > accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> > > > No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > There is no GAIA data.
> > Caught you lying, Pattycakes
> >
> > https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Data_processing/chap_cu3ast/sec_cu3ast_intro/ssec_cu3ast_intro_relativity.html
> There's no data there, Dono.

You are still lying, despicable piece of shit.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:15:46 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And these results, just as with Eddington's eclipse results, have never
> > > > been duplicated.
> >
> > > Wrong. As to Eddington, do you realize that there have been many
> > > eclipses since 1919? And once we had the ability to launch satellites,
> > > eclipses weren't even necessary any longer? All a satellite needs is a
> > > sun shield disk to make its own "eclipse". Guess what? GR confirmed
> > > each and every time.
> > Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
> > accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
> > No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
> >
> > Jan
> There is no GAIA data.

And the Earth is flat too,

Jan

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, pat dolan lied:
>
>>> Gravitational light deflection has been demonstrated to much better
>>> accuracy both by VLBI and by astrometry using GAIA data,
>>> No eclipses are needed, no need to look close to the sun,
>>>
>>> Jan
>> There is no GAIA data.
>
> Caught you lying, Pattycakes
>
> https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Data_processing/chap_cu3ast/sec_cu3ast_intro/ssec_cu3ast_intro_relativity.html
>

Some people are perfectly happy lying to manipulate others into doing
things they’re too lazy to do themselves.

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

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:37:27 AM UTC-4, 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.

A transition of the Cs 133 atom will take a different amount of absolute time to complete in different frames and different gravitational potentials.