On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:01:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation..
> > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
> > >>
> > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> > >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > >>
> > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> > >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> > >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> > >
> > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?
> > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > affected.
> >
> > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
Where is my answer Moroney and Bodkin?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> > >>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> > >>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> > >>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> > >>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> > >>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > >>>evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > >>>dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> > >>>carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > >>>gravitational time dilation.
> > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> > >> well.
> > >>
> > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> > >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > >>
> > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> > >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> > >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> > >
> > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> > > clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> > > on the surface of the earth?
> > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > affected.
> >
> > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
>
> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?

No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
(Hafele and Keating all over again)

You really age faster on top of a mountain,

Jan

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> > > >>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> > > >>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> > > >>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> > > >>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> > > >>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > > >>>evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > > >>>dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> > > >>>carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > > >>>gravitational time dilation.
> > > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> > > >> well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> > > >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > > >>
> > > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> > > >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> > > >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> > > >
> > > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> > > > clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> > > > on the surface of the earth?
> > > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > > affected.
> > >
> > > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> >
> > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> (Hafele and Keating all over again)
>
> You really age faster on top of a mountain,
>
> Jan
JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo. Now what? Will the real chump please stand up?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:01:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
>>>>>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
>>>>>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
>>>>>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or
>>>>>>>> something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
>>>>>> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
>>>>>> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
>>>>>> carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
>>>>>> gravitational time dilation.
>>>>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>>>>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>>>>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>>>>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>>>>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>>>>
>>>> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
>>>> clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
>>>> on the surface of the earth?
>>> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
>>> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
>>> affected.
>>>
>>> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
>>> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
>>> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
>>> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
>>> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
>>> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
>>> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
>>> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
>>> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
>> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
>> locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
>> have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> Where is my answer Moroney and Bodkin?
>

The question wasn’t parseable English. Were/are you drunk?

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
>>>>>>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
>>>>>>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
>>>>>>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
>>>>>>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
>>>>>>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
>>>>>>> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
>>>>>>> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
>>>>>>> carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
>>>>>>> gravitational time dilation.
>>>>>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>>>>>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>>>>>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>>>>>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>>>>>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
>>>>> clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
>>>>> on the surface of the earth?
>>>> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
>>>> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
>>>> affected.
>>>>
>>>> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
>>>> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
>>>> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
>>>> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
>>>> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
>>>> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
>>>> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
>>>> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
>>>> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
>>>
>>> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
>>> locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
>>> have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
>> No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
>> there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
>> (Hafele and Keating all over again)
>>
>> You really age faster on top of a mountain,
>>
>> Jan
> JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo.

No, he doesn’t. You seem deeply confused.

> Now what? Will the real chump please stand up?
>

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

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> >>>>>>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> >>>>>>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> >>>>>>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> >>>>>>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> >>>>>>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> >>>>>>> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> >>>>>>> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> >>>>>>> carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> >>>>>>> gravitational time dilation.
> >>>>>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> >>>>>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> >>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> >>>>>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> >>>>>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> >>>>>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> >>>>> clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> >>>>> on the surface of the earth?
> >>>> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> >>>> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> >>>> affected.
> >>>>
> >>>> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> >>>> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> >>>> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> >>>> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> >>>> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> >>>> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> >>>> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> >>>> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> >>>> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> >>>
> >>> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> >>> locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> >>> have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> >> No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> >> there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> >> (Hafele and Keating all over again)
> >>
> >> You really age faster on top of a mountain,
> >>
> >> Jan
> > JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo.
> No, he doesn’t. You seem deeply confused.

So, Bodkin and Moroney, you both agree with JJ that an un-meltable atomic clock operating on the surface of the sun for one year will have 6 fewer seconds than an atomic clock operating on the surface of the earth after both are brought together for comparison?

> > Now what? Will the real chump please stand up?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
>>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
>>> now and bring us such data.
>>>
>> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.1
>> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
>
> Yes. This one has the correct value.
> Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
> (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
> just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)

Quite.
The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
Δλ/λ = 1.12e-6

A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
(we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
Δλ/λ = (GM/c²)⋅(1/d−1/R)+v²/2c²
where R is the radius of the Sun,
and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.

This equation gives the result:
d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
Δλ/λ = 2.137e-6

d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
Δλ/λ = 2.123e-6

>
> The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
> by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)

Right.
Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds

>
> This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
> (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)

Slow relative to what?

A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
Δt/t = -(GM/c²)⋅(1/1AU)-v²/2c² ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year

Was this what you meant?

(Schwarzschild time is synchronous with a clock at infinity.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 19:39:58 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
> >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
> >>
> >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> >>
> >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> >
> > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?
> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> affected.
>
> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> TO IT

No, stupid Mike. It's 9192631774 per second counted by
a LOCAL satellite clock.

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 20:53:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> > > >>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> > > >>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> > > >>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> > > >>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> > > >>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > > >>>evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > > >>>dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> > > >>>carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > > >>>gravitational time dilation.
> > > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> > > >> well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> > > >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > > >>
> > > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> > > >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> > > >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> > > >
> > > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> > > > clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> > > > on the surface of the earth?
> > > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > > affected.
> > >
> > > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> >
> > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.

No, there will be no paradox. Sane people, instead mumbling
about some time dilation nonsense, will simply adjust the clocks.
They've already did. And your bunch of idiots is enchanting
the reality.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney:
> > > > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > > > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> > > > >>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> > > > >>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> > > > >>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> > > > >>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> > > > >>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > > > >>>evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > > > >>>dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> > > > >>>carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > > > >>>gravitational time dilation.
> > > > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > > > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> > > > >> well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our
> > > > >> light blue shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks
> > > > >> without some sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling
> > > > >> which is subjects to gravitational or velocity-related red or
> > > > >> blue shifts.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> > > > > clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> > > > > on the surface of the earth?
> > > > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > > > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > > > affected.
> > > >
> > > > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > > > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > > > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > > > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > > > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > > > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > > > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > > > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > > > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> > >
> > > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> > No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> > there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> > (Hafele and Keating all over again)
> >
> > You really age faster on top of a mountain,
> >
> > Jan
> JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo. Now what? Will the
> real chump please stand up?
>
Nope, it is merely you who didn't understand what I wrote.
More practical: Take two twins, and two identical portable atomic
clocks.
A stays in a valley, just walking around some.
B walks up a mountain, stays there for some time,
then walks back to meet A again.
On comparing, B will be older,
and B's clock will have more time counted up on it than A's,
(how much depending on how long he has been up there)
And yes, the experiment has been done,

Jan

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> >>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> >>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
> >>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
> >>> now and bring us such data.
> >>>
> >> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.1
> >> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
> >
> > Yes. This one has the correct value.
> > Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
> > (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
> > just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)
>
> Quite.
> The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
> the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
> ??/? = 1.12e-6
>
> A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
> (we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
> ??/? = (GM/c?)?(1/d?1/R)+v?/2c?
> where R is the radius of the Sun,
> and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
> and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.
>
> This equation gives the result:
> d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
> ??/? = 2.137e-6
>
> d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
> ??/? = 2.123e-6
>
> >
> > The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
> > by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)
>
> Right.
> Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds
>
> >
> > This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
> > (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)
>
> Slow relative to what?
>
> A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
> be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
> ?t/t = -(GM/c?)?(1/1AU)-v?/2c? ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year
>
> Was this what you meant?

It is called Barycentric Coordinate Time. (by the IAU, since 1991)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Coordinate_Time>

BCT is the time scale that you need
for calculating motions in the solar system easily and correctly.
It is about half a second/year fast with respect to TAI,

Jan

> (Schwarzschild time is synchronous with a clock at infinity.)

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
>>>>>>>>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
>>>>>>>>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
>>>>>>>>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
>>>>>>>>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
>>>>>>>>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
>>>>>>>>> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
>>>>>>>>> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
>>>>>>>>> carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
>>>>>>>>> gravitational time dilation.
>>>>>>>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>>>>>>>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>>>>>>>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>>>>>>>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>>>>>>>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
>>>>>>> clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
>>>>>>> on the surface of the earth?
>>>>>> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
>>>>>> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
>>>>>> affected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
>>>>>> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
>>>>>> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
>>>>>> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
>>>>>> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
>>>>>> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
>>>>>> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
>>>>>> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
>>>>>> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
>>>>>
>>>>> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
>>>>> locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
>>>>> have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
>>>> No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
>>>> there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
>>>> (Hafele and Keating all over again)
>>>>
>>>> You really age faster on top of a mountain,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>> JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo.
>> No, he doesn’t. You seem deeply confused.
>
> So, Bodkin and Moroney, you both agree with JJ that an un-meltable atomic
> clock operating on the surface of the sun for one year will have 6 fewer
> seconds than an atomic clock operating on the surface of the earth after
> both are brought together for comparison?

Yes.

Hafele and Keating.

GPS.

>
>
>>> Now what? Will the real chump please stand up?
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 20:53:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
[-]
> > > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> > No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> > there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
>
> No, there will be no paradox. Sane people, instead mumbling
> about some time dilation nonsense, will simply adjust the clocks.

Yes, that is precisely the point.
They NEED to adjust their clocks,
if they want to get in sync again.

Jan

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

> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> >>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> >>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the
> >>> earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something.
> >>> Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>>
> >> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.12
1..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>
> >>
> > Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry
> > on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > gravitational time dilation.
> >
> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
>
> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>
> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.

Of course there is. Just walk down that mountain again.
You've been misled. All that signalling talk is just a red herring.
Both the special relativistic twin paradox
and the general relativistc one
do not depend on any signalling that may or may not be going on.

Jan

On 4/21/2022 2:37 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:01:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
>>>>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>>>>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>>>>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>>>>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>>>>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>>>>
>>>> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?
>>> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
>>> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
>>> affected.
>>>
>>> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
>>> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
>>> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
>>> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
>>> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
>>> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
>>> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
>>> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
>>> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
>> If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?

Nope. This is like the traveling twin gedanken, except GR/gravity
instead of SR.

> Where is my answer Moroney and Bodkin?

Why do you think you are entitled to an answer after just 36 minutes?

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

>
> Why do you think you are entitled to an answer after just 36 minutes?
>

He abandoned a book about halfway through the first chapter. This is Short
Attention Span Theater here.

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

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 22:02:45 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:53:25 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney:
> > > > > >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6
> > > > > >>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some
> > > > > >>>>> constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when
> > > > > >>>>> observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium
> > > > > >>>>> spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960
> > > > > >>>> MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> > > > > >>>evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> > > > > >>>dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms
> > > > > >>>carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of
> > > > > >>>gravitational time dilation.
> > > > > >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> > > > > >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity
> > > > > >> well.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our
> > > > > >> light blue shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks
> > > > > >> without some sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling
> > > > > >> which is subjects to gravitational or velocity-related red or
> > > > > >> blue shifts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic
> > > > > > clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does
> > > > > > on the surface of the earth?
> > > > > As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> > > > > the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> > > > > affected.
> > > > >
> > > > > We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> > > > > second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> > > > > clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> > > > > launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> > > > > TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> > > > > reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> > > > > (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> > > > > frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> > > > > (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)
> > > >
> > > > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > > > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > > > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> > > No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> > > there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> > > (Hafele and Keating all over again)
> > >
> > > You really age faster on top of a mountain,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > JJ contradicts your position, Bodkin and Moronieo. Now what? Will the
> > real chump please stand up?
> >
> Nope, it is merely you who didn't understand what I wrote.
> More practical: Take two twins, and two identical portable atomic
> clocks.

Take your "identical" clocks and put them straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass. Anyone can check GPS or TAI,
they're unusable for precise timekeeping.

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 23:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 20:53:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [-]
> > > > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > > > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > > > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> > > No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> > > there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> >
> > No, there will be no paradox. Sane people, instead mumbling
> > about some time dilation nonsense, will simply adjust the clocks.
> Yes, that is precisely the point.
> They NEED to adjust their clocks,
> if they want to get in sync again.

And your bunch of idiot screaming that it's improprer
can do exactly nothing about it. Common sense was
warning your idiot guru.
And trying to pretend that discovering "clocks need
to be adjusted" is the greatest ever breakthrough in
science - is really funny, you know.

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 06:21:27 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 23:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 20:53:25 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > [-]
> > > > > If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate
> > > > > locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should
> > > > > have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?
> > > > No. Even ignoring the special relativistic twin paradox
> > > > there will be the general relativistic twin paradox.
> > >
> > > No, there will be no paradox. Sane people, instead mumbling
> > > about some time dilation nonsense, will simply adjust the clocks.
> > Yes, that is precisely the point.
> > They NEED to adjust their clocks,
> > if they want to get in sync again.
> And your bunch of idiot screaming that it's improprer
> can do exactly nothing about it. Common sense was
> warning your idiot guru.
> And trying to pretend that discovering "clocks need
> to be adjusted" is the greatest ever breakthrough in
> science - is really funny, you know.

What was really discovered by your insane guru
is - that clocks don't need any adjusting when
desynchronized. Desynchronizing clocks are fine,
proper and symmetrical, and trying to get them
synchronized is evil.
Common sense was warning him.

Den 21.04.2022 22:17, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>> Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>>>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
>>>>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
>>>>> now and bring us such data.
>>>>>
>>>> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.1
>>>> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
>>>
>>> Yes. This one has the correct value.
>>> Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
>>> (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
>>> just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)
>>
>> Quite.
>> The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
>> the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
>> ??/? = 1.12e-6
>>
>> A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
>> (we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
>> ??/? = (GM/c?)?(1/d?1/R)+v?/2c?
>> where R is the radius of the Sun,
>> and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
>> and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.
>>
>> This equation gives the result:
>> d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
>> ??/? = 2.137e-6
>>
>> d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
>> ??/? = 2.123e-6
>>
>>>
>>> The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
>>> by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)
>>
>> Right.
>> Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds
>>
>>>
>>> This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
>>> (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)
>>
>> Slow relative to what?
>>
>> A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
>> be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
>> ?t/t = -(GM/c?)?(1/1AU)-v?/2c? ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year

This isn't a clock on the Earth, but a clock in Earth orbit.

A clock on the Earth would run slow relative to a clock at infinity by:

\Delta t/t ≈ -(GMs/c^2)(1/1AU)-v/2c^2 -(GMe/c^2)(1/r)-ve/2c^2
≈ -1.550091e-8 ≈ -489 mS/year

where Ms is the mass of Sun, v is the orbital speed of Earth,
Me is the mass of Earth, r is the radius of Earth and ve the speed
of a point on equator relative to the centre of Earth.

That is:
If the the Sun and the Earth were the only masses in the universe,
a clock at infinity would run faster than a TAI clock by
1.550091e-8 ≈ 489 mS/year.

But in the real world the Sun and Earth are not the only
masses in the world, of course.
The influence of all the other bodies in the solar system
would probably make a TAI clock a bit slower relative
to a clock at infinity than stated above.

>>
>> Was this what you meant?
>
> It is called Barycentric Coordinate Time. (by the IAU, since 1991)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Coordinate_Time>

Interesting! Thanks for the link.

>
> BCT is the time scale that you need
> for calculating motions in the solar system easily and correctly.
> It is about half a second/year fast with respect to TAI,

Quite.
According to the link a clock at the centre of gravity of
the solar system would run faster than a TAI clock by
1.550505 or 490 mS/year.

This is obviously a much better reference than
a clock at infinity of a hypothetical universe!
(Even if the difference is rather small.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 21.04.2022 22:17, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> >>>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> >>>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
> >>>>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
> >>>>> now and bring us such data.
> >>>>>
> >>>> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS
..1
> >>>> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> Yes. This one has the correct value.
> >>> Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
> >>> (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
> >>> just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >> The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
> >> the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
> >> ??/? = 1.12e-6
> >>
> >> A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
> >> (we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
> >> ??/? = (GM/c?)?(1/d?1/R)+v?/2c?
> >> where R is the radius of the Sun,
> >> and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
> >> and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.
> >>
> >> This equation gives the result:
> >> d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
> >> ??/? = 2.137e-6
> >>
> >> d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
> >> ??/? = 2.123e-6
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
> >>> by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)
> >>
> >> Right.
> >> Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
> >>> (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)
> >>
> >> Slow relative to what?
> >>
> >> A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
> >> be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
> >> ?t/t = -(GM/c?)?(1/1AU)-v?/2c? ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year
>
> This isn't a clock on the Earth, but a clock in Earth orbit.
>
> A clock on the Earth would run slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
>
> \Delta t/t ≈ -(GMs/c^2)(1/1AU)-v/2c^2 -(GMe/c^2)(1/r)-ve/2c^2
> ≈ -1.550091e-8 ≈ -489 mS/year
>
> where Ms is the mass of Sun, v is the orbital speed of Earth,
> Me is the mass of Earth, r is the radius of Earth and ve the speed
> of a point on equator relative to the centre of Earth.
>
> That is:
> If the the Sun and the Earth were the only masses in the universe,
> a clock at infinity would run faster than a TAI clock by
> 1.550091e-8 ≈ 489 mS/year.

Actually, TCB corrects for the gravitational potentials
of all bodies in the solar system. Simply Schwarzschild won't do.

> But in the real world the Sun and Earth are not the only
> masses in the world, of course.
> The influence of all the other bodies in the solar system
> would probably make a TAI clock a bit slower relative
> to a clock at infinity than stated above.
>
> >>
> >> Was this what you meant?
> >
> > It is called Barycentric Coordinate Time. (by the IAU, since 1991)
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Coordinate_Time>
>
> Interesting! Thanks for the link.
>
> >
> > BCT is the time scale that you need
> > for calculating motions in the solar system easily and correctly.
> > It is about half a second/year fast with respect to TAI,

Correction: My mistake, should be TCB. (those French -:(

> Quite.
> According to the link a clock at the centre of gravity of
> the solar system would run faster than a TAI clock by
> 1.550505 or 490 mS/year.

> This is obviously a much better reference than
> a clock at infinity of a hypothetical universe!
> (Even if the difference is rather small.)

Almost. TCB is the time of a hypothetical clock
that is co-moving with the barycentre of the Solar System,
but removed 'infinitely' far away from it.
(so outside of all potential wells)

Obviously such a clock cannot exist,
and if it existed we could not read it.
So in practice TCB is obtained by applying corrections to TAI.
Beware, that 490 ms/year is the average over a year.
There is also a periodc variation in the rate difference
because the orbit of the Earth is not perfectly circular.
(just like for GPS sats)

And 'small'??? It is actually a huge correction,
almost half the way to the Moon,

Jan

Den 23.04.2022 14:15, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>> Den 21.04.2022 22:17, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>>>>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>>>>>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
>>>>>>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
>>>>>>> now and bring us such data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS
> .1
>>>>>> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. This one has the correct value.
>>>>> Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
>>>>> (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
>>>>> just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)
>>>>
>>>> Quite.
>>>> The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
>>>> the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
>>>> ??/? = 1.12e-6
>>>>
>>>> A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
>>>> (we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
>>>> ??/? = (GM/c?)?(1/d?1/R)+v?/2c?
>>>> where R is the radius of the Sun,
>>>> and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
>>>> and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> This equation gives the result:
>>>> d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
>>>> ??/? = 2.137e-6
>>>>
>>>> d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
>>>> ??/? = 2.123e-6
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
>>>>> by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>> Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
>>>>> (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)
>>>>
>>>> Slow relative to what?
>>>>
>>>> A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
>>>> be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
>>>> ?t/t = -(GM/c?)?(1/1AU)-v?/2c? ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year
>>
>> This isn't a clock on the Earth, but a clock in Earth orbit.
>>
>> A clock on the Earth would run slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
>>
>> \Delta t/t ≈ -(GMs/c^2)(1/1AU)-v/2c^2 -(GMe/c^2)(1/r)-ve/2c^2
>> ≈ -1.550091e-8 ≈ -489 mS/year
>>
>> where Ms is the mass of Sun, v is the orbital speed of Earth,
>> Me is the mass of Earth, r is the radius of Earth and ve the speed
>> of a point on equator relative to the centre of Earth.
>>
>> That is:
>> If the the Sun and the Earth were the only masses in the universe,
>> a clock at infinity would run faster than a TAI clock by
>> 1.550091e-8 ≈ 489 mS/year.
>
> Actually, TCB corrects for the gravitational potentials
> of all bodies in the solar system. Simply Schwarzschild won't do.

Which is what I stated below:
>
>> But in the real world the Sun and Earth are not the only
>> masses in the world, of course.
>> The influence of all the other bodies in the solar system
>> would probably make a TAI clock a bit slower relative
>> to a clock at infinity than stated above.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Was this what you meant?
>>>
>>> It is called Barycentric Coordinate Time. (by the IAU, since 1991)
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Coordinate_Time>
>>
>> Interesting! Thanks for the link.
>>
>>>
>>> BCT is the time scale that you need
>>> for calculating motions in the solar system easily and correctly.
>>> It is about half a second/year fast with respect to TAI,
>
> Correction: My mistake, should be TCB. (those French -:(
>
>> Quite.
>> According to the link a clock at the centre of gravity of
>> the solar system would run faster than a TAI clock by
>> 1.550505 or 490 mS/year.

oops. 1.550505e-8
>
>> This is obviously a much better reference than
>> a clock at infinity of a hypothetical universe!
>> (Even if the difference is rather small.)
>
> Almost. TCB is the time of a hypothetical clock
> that is co-moving with the barycentre of the Solar System,
> but removed 'infinitely' far away from it.
> (so outside of all potential wells)

That makes sense.
>
> Obviously such a clock cannot exist,
> and if it existed we could not read it.
> So in practice TCB is obtained by applying corrections to TAI.
> Beware, that 490 ms/year is the average over a year.
> There is also a periodc variation in the rate difference
> because the orbit of the Earth is not perfectly circular.
> (just like for GPS sats)

Of course.

>
> And 'small'??? It is actually a huge correction,
> almost half the way to the Moon,

It wasn't the half second I considered to be small, it was:

The rate of a clock at infinity compared to TAI is:

#1: If the the Sun and Earth were the only masses in the universe:
\Delta t/t = 1.550091e-8

#2: If all the masses in the solar system is accounted for:
\Delta t/t = 1.550505e-8

The difference is 4.14e-12 or 131 us a year.
Rather small, but still significant.

---

Again, thanks for the link.
I have learned something I didn't know.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 23.04.2022 14:15, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 21.04.2022 22:17, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Den 21.04.2022 13:24, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> >>>>>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> >>>>>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the
> >>>>>>> earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or
> >>>>>>> something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNR
AS
> > .1
> >>>>>> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes. This one has the correct value.
> >>>>> Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
> >>>>> (and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
> >>>>> just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite.
> >>>> The reference gives the GR prediction of the redshift observed on
> >>>> the Earth of a source on the the surface of the Sun to be:
> >>>> ??/? = 1.12e-6
> >>>>
> >>>> A good approximation of the Schwarzschild prediction is:
> >>>> (we ignore Earth's gravitation,)
> >>>> ??/? = (GM/c?)?(1/d?1/R)+v?/2c?
> >>>> where R is the radius of the Sun,
> >>>> and d is the observers distance from the Sun's centre,
> >>>> and v is the orbital speed of the Earth.
> >>>>
> >>>> This equation gives the result:
> >>>> d = 1AU, v = 29.78 km/s (observer at Earth):
> >>>> ??/? = 2.137e-6
> >>>>
> >>>> d = ∞ (observer stationary at infinity)
> >>>> ??/? = 2.123e-6
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
> >>>>> by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)
> >>>>
> >>>> Right.
> >>>> Slow relative a clock on the Earth by ≈ 57 seconds
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
> >>>>> (TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)
> >>>>
> >>>> Slow relative to what?
> >>>>
> >>>> A clock on the Earth would due to the Sun's gravitation
> >>>> be slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
> >>>> ?t/t = -(GM/c?)?(1/1AU)-v?/2c? ≈ -1.480e-8 ≈ - 0.47 seconds/year
> >>
> >> This isn't a clock on the Earth, but a clock in Earth orbit.
> >>
> >> A clock on the Earth would run slow relative to a clock at infinity by:
> >>
> >> \Delta t/t ≈ -(GMs/c^2)(1/1AU)-v/2c^2 -(GMe/c^2)(1/r)-ve/2c^2
> >> ≈ -1.550091e-8 ≈ -489 mS/year
> >>
> >> where Ms is the mass of Sun, v is the orbital speed of Earth,
> >> Me is the mass of Earth, r is the radius of Earth and ve the speed
> >> of a point on equator relative to the centre of Earth.
> >>
> >> That is:
> >> If the the Sun and the Earth were the only masses in the universe,
> >> a clock at infinity would run faster than a TAI clock by
> >> 1.550091e-8 ≈ 489 mS/year.
> >
> > Actually, TCB corrects for the gravitational potentials
> > of all bodies in the solar system. Simply Schwarzschild won't do.
>
> Which is what I stated below:
> >
> >> But in the real world the Sun and Earth are not the only
> >> masses in the world, of course.
> >> The influence of all the other bodies in the solar system
> >> would probably make a TAI clock a bit slower relative
> >> to a clock at infinity than stated above.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Was this what you meant?
> >>>
> >>> It is called Barycentric Coordinate Time. (by the IAU, since 1991)
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Coordinate_Time>
> >>
> >> Interesting! Thanks for the link.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> BCT is the time scale that you need
> >>> for calculating motions in the solar system easily and correctly.
> >>> It is about half a second/year fast with respect to TAI,
> >
> > Correction: My mistake, should be TCB. (those French -:(
> >
> >> Quite.
> >> According to the link a clock at the centre of gravity of
> >> the solar system would run faster than a TAI clock by
> >> 1.550505 or 490 mS/year.
>
> oops. 1.550505e-8
> >
> >> This is obviously a much better reference than
> >> a clock at infinity of a hypothetical universe!
> >> (Even if the difference is rather small.)
> >
> > Almost. TCB is the time of a hypothetical clock
> > that is co-moving with the barycentre of the Solar System,
> > but removed 'infinitely' far away from it.
> > (so outside of all potential wells)
>
> That makes sense.
> >
> > Obviously such a clock cannot exist,
> > and if it existed we could not read it.
> > So in practice TCB is obtained by applying corrections to TAI.
> > Beware, that 490 ms/year is the average over a year.
> > There is also a periodc variation in the rate difference
> > because the orbit of the Earth is not perfectly circular.
> > (just like for GPS sats)
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> > And 'small'??? It is actually a huge correction,
> > almost half the way to the Moon,
>
> It wasn't the half second I considered to be small, it was:
>
> The rate of a clock at infinity compared to TAI is:
>
> #1: If the the Sun and Earth were the only masses in the universe:
> \Delta t/t = 1.550091e-8
>
> #2: If all the masses in the solar system is accounted for:
> \Delta t/t = 1.550505e-8

There is an at first sight bewildering,
and perhaps intimidating variety of time scales,
correcting, or not, for various relativistic effects.
Wikipedia is a good guide.

> The difference is 4.14e-12 or 131 us a year.
> Rather small, but still significant.

Yes. What our resident nutters fail to understand completely
is that those relativistic corrections are not made
just for the sake of pleasing a dead Great Guru.

They are actually necessary if you need to compute things accurately,
like tracking Bennu to meter accuracy, or pin-pointing a probe
through the rings of Saturn, or landing on Mars, or, or.

Yes dear nutters, those nanoseconds may really matter,
and taking them into account correctly can make all the difference
between succes and failure of a mission,

Jan

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 11:42:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > The difference is 4.14e-12 or 131 us a year.
> > Rather small, but still significant.
> Yes. What our resident nutters fail to understand completely
> is that those relativistic corrections are not made
> just for the sake of pleasing a dead Great Guru.

No. What our resident nutters fail to understand completely
is that according to their idiot guru there should be no
corrections, clocks should desynchronize and indicate
his dilation idiocy - because he had imagined and postulated
that it would be fine.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 11:42:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>>> The difference is 4.14e-12 or 131 us a year.
>>> Rather small, but still significant.
>> Yes. What our resident nutters fail to understand completely
>> is that those relativistic corrections are not made
>> just for the sake of pleasing a dead Great Guru.
>
> No. What our resident nutters fail to understand completely
> is that according to their idiot guru there should be no
> corrections, clocks should desynchronize and indicate
> his dilation idiocy - because he had imagined and postulated
> that it would be fine.
>

LOL.

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