Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Sue... on 27 Jul 2005 01:48 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0t5qp15ocvc9i2hll6(a)4ax.com: > > > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. > > However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different > > physical conditions. > > This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by > > around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. > > It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS > orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of > SR/GR/EEP. Right? Bz, I trust you and Henri are keeping NPL and NIST apprised of all these discoveries about atomic clocks. http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html :-) Sue... > > What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent > around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as > SR/GR/EEP predicts? > > Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different? > Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration? > > Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of > gravitational self compression exist? > > > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jul 2005 02:46 On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:06:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0t5qp15ocvc9i2hll6(a)4ax.com: > >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different >> physical conditions. >> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by >> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. > >It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS >orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of >SR/GR/EEP. Right? Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison. After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading and rate anyway. > >What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent >around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as >SR/GR/EEP predicts? It will never happen. It proves GR wrong...so the establishment will never allow such material to be seen by anyone. > >Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different? >Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration? If it ever DID happen, I would automatically assume that there is a natural 'aether frame' around the Earth. That's the only way 'contractions' can be real. > >Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of >gravitational self compression exist? All similar clocks in free fall should change by the same amount. However in the case of orbiting clocks, other factors are involved, particularly the cutting of the Earth's fields. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Sue... on 27 Jul 2005 03:00 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > sue jahn wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: > >> > >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. > >> > >>Indeed. > >>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. > >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as > >> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical > >> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense > >> from start to finish." > >>That's why we all have ran for cover. > > > > > > Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't > > it plagarism. > > > > << The big difference between a standard clock in your home and > > an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between > > the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation > > is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of > > a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to > > keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the > > atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity > > and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the > > nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> > > http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm > > You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) I am quite careful about that. Especially when writen by the spoonbenders in this news group. :o) > Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how > an atomic clock works. Then these folks must have it wrong too: http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8 << Greater resolution and accuracy might be more readily achieved using a different type of transition, e.g., the weak hyperfine-induced electric dipole transitions like those between the low-lying 1S0 and 3P0 states of the singly ionized species of the Group IIIA elements of the periodic table [12,24,25], particularly in cases where first-order magnetic-field independent transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>> http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf > > Statements like: > "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined > by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic > "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and > the electron cloud surrounding it." > and: > "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to > vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second." > and: > "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." > are indeed very revealing. Oh? Is this what they reveal? http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm > > If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should > give you a hint: > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. > Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints. > But don't be too sad. > Newton didn't have a clue about this either. Oh ? http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html > So you are in good company. :-) Better his shoulders than yours. <<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states that the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment carried out in a freely falling reference frame is independent of the velocity of that frame, while the principle of local position invariance holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is also independent of where and when in the universe it is performed. In this context "local" means confined to a suitably small region of space and time, while "freely falling" means falling freely under gravity with no other forces acting. Although Einstein used it to derive general relativity, his equivalence principle implies only that gravitation must be described by a "metric theory" - a theory in which matter responds to the geometry of space-time and nothing else. >><< --Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences and the Department of Physics, Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1 So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*. http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg Sue... > > Paul
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Jul 2005 03:45 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:06:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0t5qp15ocvc9i2hll6(a)4ax.com: > > > >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. > >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different > >> physical conditions. > >> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by > >> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. > > > >It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS > >orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of > >SR/GR/EEP. Right? > > Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison. > After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading > and rate anyway. [snip] The adjustment is much smaller than the GR correction. If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you, by Minor Crank, you would know this.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Jul 2005 03:51
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:22:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:22:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> > > >>>>>I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten >>>>>what the question was. >>>> >>>>Quite. >>>>And here is your answer to the forgotten question. >>>> >>>>Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004: >>>>| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory >>>>| predicts HD80715 should look like. >>>>| >>>>| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1. >>>>| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star >>>>| >>>>| phase brightness >>>>| >>>>| 0.0 1.22 >>>>| 0.1 1.21 >>>>| 0.17 1.97 >>>>| 0.18 2.45 >>>>| 0.19 5.90 >>>>| 0.1913 60.00 >>>>| 0.191310 infinite >>>>| 0.2 0.66 >>>>| 0.3 0.64 >>>>| 0.4 0.63 >>>>| 0.5 0.62 >>>>| 0.6 0.63 >>>>| 0.7 0.64 >>>>| 0.8 0.67 >>>>| 0.808719 infinite >>>>| 0.8089 21.6 >>>>| 0.809 11.80 >>>>| 0.81 3.90 >>>>| 0.9 1.34 >>>>| 1.0 1.22 >>>>| >>>>| Note that the integral over one period is 1, >>>>| that is the average brightness is 1. >>>>| >>>>| The above is for one of the stars, you can get >>>>| the light curve for both stars by translating >>>>| the above half a period and adding. >>>> >>>>Henri Wilson responded: >>>>| I can get these figures from my program. >>>>| >>>>| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is >>>>| correct.... not that I ever doubted it. >>>>| >>>>| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble. >>>>| Just click your mouse a >>>>| few times and...there is your curve. >>>> >>>>But HD80715 is no variable. >>>> >>>>So just by clicking his mouse a few times, >>>>Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory. >>> >>> >>>After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single >>>star or a binary pair. >>>My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours. >>> >>>When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted >>>figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant >>>brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The >>>curves are 180 out of phase. >> >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>| There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>| brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >>| variable star simulation program: >>| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> >>Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects >>in these cases, Henri? :-) >> >>Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred >>parameters for your alleged binary? > > > Give up Paul. You are starting to sound like a troll who is desperate to use > any tactic to prop up his faith, > The GR correction of GPS clocks is a myth and the BaT can produce observed > brightness variation curves for most stars. > > Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh? You don't like to be asked for concrete examples, do you? The reason is obvious, of course. You once gave one, and have regretted it ever since. >>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. >>>> >>>>Indeed. >>>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. >>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as >>>>predicted by GR, prove that the mythical >>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense >>>>from start to finish." >>>>That's why we all have ran for cover. >>> >>> >>>The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are >>>empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit. >> >>Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured. >>The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR >>to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand >>times better than the size of the "GR-correction". > > > Nonsense. You are making it up. > No experiment has ever verified this. Of course not, Henri. As we all know, the GPS does not work. >>So let me rephrase your proof: >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as >> predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, >> prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks >> is plain nonsense from start to finish." >> >>Satisfied now? > > > You are dreaming again. Henri Wilson wrote: | There is an observer on the ground and another in the | proposed GPS orbit. Both observers will use the same clock to measure the time | duration of the GPS orbit. | | When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit duration | is N ticks of the clock. | | When the clock is in orbit, both observers agree that the orbit duration is N+n | ticks of the clock. This is exactly as predicted by GR, and it is verified by the GPS within the precision of the clocks. From this, you conclude: | GR is therefore plain nonsense.....!!!! So your proof boils down to: "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is plain nonsense from start to finish." Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream? >>>Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. >> >>Of course Henri. >>That was what I said, wasn't it? >>Nobody can refute your genial proof. > > > Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. Keep asserting, Henri. Maybe Nature eventually will change one day. > The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway. The ultimate argument! Henri finds GR nonsensical. It must be wrong, then. > Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel > like a good laugh. Keep laughing at what you don't understand, Henri. It make you look so intelligent. Paul |