Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!
De : tomyee3 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 27. Sep 2024, 23:02:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <ba584939542f5f702992f1b7c00633af@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:07:10 +0000, rhertz wrote:

======================================================================
That is a rather absurd argument. Consider that the linewidth of the
cesium hyperfine resonance ranges from 1 to 10 Hz, depending on the
atomic beam or fountain configuration, interrogation time, and other
details of clock construction. By your argument, it should be
impossible for even the best cesium clocks to hold time to better than
about 1 part in 9192631770, or 9 microseconds per day. In reality,
the 5071A (a portable cesium beam clock) exhibits an accuracy of
±5×10^−13 and a stability of 2.7×10^−14 over 100,000 s, while cesium
fountain clocks exhibit accuracy and stability in the 10^-16 range.
Are cesium clocks FAKE???
======================================================================
>
Don't forget that 9,192,631,770 Hz IS A CONVENTION, not a constant of
nature. It has intrinsic (and random) noise of about +/- 2.5 Hz, which
traduces into an uncertainty of about 10E-10.
>
Don't confuse Cs133 frequency shift with the shift of the MASTER TCXO
(5 or 10 Mhz), which is THE HEART of the atomic clock, stabilized much
more through negative feedback. This is the clock used for timing, not
the Cs133, which is used as MASTER STABILIZER.
======================================================================
Yes. And don't forget that it is this long term stabilization of the
crystal oscillator against the NOISY input signal comprising trillions
of cesium atoms each second (the beam would generally be in the 1-10
microampere range) that enables the center of the resonance to be
established to within parts per thousand or better of the line width.
Instead of averaging in the frequency domain using a crystal, Pound
and Rebka averaged in the velocity domain recording accumulated counts.
Why do you doubt the possibilty of doing that?
I repeat. Pound and Rebka validated the Local Position Invariance
(LPI) aspect of the equivalence principle, which if false would
disprove Newtonian gravitation as well as general relativity.
Do you really believe that Newtonian gravitation could be FALSE???
======================================================================

Date Sujet#  Auteur
25 Sep 24 * Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!30rhertz
25 Sep 24 +* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!22Paul.B.Andersen
25 Sep 24 i+* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!19rhertz
25 Sep 24 ii+* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!16rhertz
25 Sep 24 iii`* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!15rhertz
26 Sep 24 iii +* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!7rhertz
26 Sep 24 iii i`* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!6ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
27 Sep 24 iii i +* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!4ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
27 Sep 24 iii i i`* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!3rhertz
27 Sep 24 iii i i `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!2ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
28 Sep 24 iii i i  `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
1 Oct 24 iii i `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1Maciej Wozniak
26 Sep 24 iii `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!7Paul.B.Andersen
26 Sep 24 iii  `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!6rhertz
26 Sep 24 iii   `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!5Paul.B.Andersen
27 Sep 24 iii    `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!4rhertz
27 Sep 24 iii     `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!3rhertz
28 Sep 24 iii      `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!2Paul.B.Andersen
29 Sep 24 iii       `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1rhertz
25 Sep 24 ii`* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!2Paul.B.Andersen
25 Sep 24 ii `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1rhertz
25 Sep 24 i+- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1Richard Hachel
25 Sep 24 i`- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1Richard Hachel
26 Sep 24 +- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1bertietaylor
30 Sep 24 `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!6J. J. Lodder
1 Oct 24  `* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!5rhertz
1 Oct 24   +* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!3Paul.B.Andersen
1 Oct 24   i`* Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!2Maciej Wozniak
2 Oct 24   i `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1Richard Hachel
5 Oct 24   `- Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!1J. J. Lodder

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal