1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • Re: Einstein rejected Galileo & Eotvo

    From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Jan 13 02:06:32 2024
    On 1/12/2024 4:04 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 23:23:07 UTC, Volney wrote:
    On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.

    And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.

    Says Volney as he pretends Relativity predicted anywhere near
    the exact amount of 446 ms/day before 442ms/day was observed in
    1977 by the first GPS sat.
    Still no sign of any citations backing up your fantasy.

    I already told you. The design spec for the NTS-2 satellite.
    Happy googling. (I'm not doing your work for you)


    So, you stand by your position that clocks in orbit are not affected by gravity? And, Newton mode is when you pretend Newtonian can't explain the different rate of the clocks in space because that is time dilation and not instrumental error as when a
    pendulum clock is used in space?

    Clocks in orbit are affected by relativity's Schwarzschild metric,
    GM/rc². Gravity is also an effect of general relativity. So the answer
    really is that clocks in orbit aren't affected by gravity

    Yes. According to Relativity, clock rates and time dilation has nothing to do with gravity and GM/r. You could be floating inbetween 2 galaxies
    and still measure clock gains of 446ms/day.

    Nope. You'd be using the 'infinitely far' value, not that for the GPS
    orbital height. Unless you'd want the wrong answer.


    since both the
    clock rate and gravity itself are effects of GR.

    What’s this sloppy bad formula writing?.... GM/rc². !!

    That *is* the Schwarzschild metric.

    It should be the full version of the metric
    Please next time type it out properly and in full please :D

    GM/rc². Happy?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Jan 13 22:20:58 2024
    On 1/13/2024 6:20 AM, Lou wrote:
    'On Saturday 13 January 2024 at 07:06:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
    On 1/12/2024 4:04 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday 11 January 2024 at 23:23:07 UTC, Volney wrote:
    On 1/11/2024 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:28:05 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 1/10/2024 4:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    As Lou said, "> You forgot. The time doesn’t change. The atoms resonant frequency beats faster at higher altitudes." - That's why it is set to a lower frequency.

    And, obviously, Lou is wrong. As are you.

    Says Volney as he pretends Relativity predicted anywhere near
    the exact amount of 446 ms/day before 442ms/day was observed in
    1977 by the first GPS sat.
    Still no sign of any citations backing up your fantasy.
    I already told you. The design spec for the NTS-2 satellite.

    A circular argument you use. The NTS-2 docs are written
    post 1977, post test. How could they be considered as evidence of a prediction
    made prior to the test in 1977?

    I said the DESIGN SPEC. Not the post-test document.

    Let me guess...relativistic time travel?

    No, that's your excuse, where they used the results of NTS-2 to program
    the frequency synthesizer before NTS-2 was launched.

    Happy googling. (I'm not doing your work for you)

    Said the guy whose evidence for a prediction made prior
    to the 1977 GPS test...was written AFTER the 1977 test.

    Once again, the DESIGN SPEC.

    How does one google a doc that didn’t exist prior to test date?

    You google the DESIGN SPEC instead.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)