Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.
De : hitlong (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 21. Mar 2025, 15:05:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <0ae7fef8aecfb821347a2c7f4f8db96b@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:33:47 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:24:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>
Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D
>
Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.
>
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!
No, he didn't.  Hertz doesn't seem to be a conscious entity.

The master TCXO clock on the GPS SV have (according to the narrative of
1977 relativists), TWO OPERATING MODES:
>
M1: Working at 10,230,000.000000 Hz (as good physics dictates)
M2: Working at 10,229,999.995430 Hz (as relativists claim it to be
necessary)
This was only true for the first ones in orbit.  Your M1 scenario hasn't
been implemented for decades.

Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.
Hertz's blunder is that he conflates time on board with time on the
ground.
His pseudo-Newtonian mind is incapable of understanding reality.  (I say
pseudo-Newtonian because he seems unable to understand even Newtonian
physics).

So, your count is incorrect.
>
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec.
>
Working on M2 mode, clock on the GPS SV accumulates 883,871,999,608
pulses in 86400 sec.
Hertz's problem is that, once again, he doesn't understand 86400 seconds
on earth is not 86400 seconds in orbit.  The onboard clock operates on
signals from the master frequency.  If the master frequency has been
lowered, then the clock will run slow, so the master clock will still
receive 86400 per "day."  Poor, poor Richard.  He is way out of his
depth.

as measured IN THE SV. So, the count gives (86400s - 38.575μs). It's
a LOWER LOCAL VALUE within the GPS SV.
>
What relativists claim, because they are IDIOTS, is that such difference
DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR when PERCEIVED FROM EARTH (Ground level). And they
celebrate that due to relativistic corrections, the L1 frequency REACHES
EARTH with an increase in frequency of Δf/f = -4.4647E-10.
So an increase is negative?  That explains a lot about Hertz's brain.

Such relativistic correction, idiots claim, allow that the L1 carrier
emitted from the SV at 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz COULD REACH EARTH AT
EXACTLY 1,575,420,000.000 Hz = 154 x 10,230,000.000000 Hz.
As Paul tirelessly explains, the carrier frequency experiences the
Doppler effect due to the speed of the satellites (sigh!).

Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS
OF 38.5 usec on the orbiting clock.
Hertz is trying to confuse the issue by referring to the on-board clock.
He's no engineer.  An engineer would understand that if an oscillator
was adjusted to operate at a lower frequency and a counter received
that signal, he wouldn't be wondering where the "extra pulses" (received
BEFORE the oscillator was detuned) went :-))

But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN
CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.
But the fact is that the slower clock in orbit matches the master
clock on the ground.  Not because Schwarzschild "advised so" but
because that is what REALLY happens.  We believe we know WHY it
happens because the theory matches experiment.

Don't be confused about the values of time and frequency. Two sides of
the same coin.
>
Which is the truth? Relativity IS FALSE, A FALLACIOUS PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND
THE ORBITING CLOCK WORKS ONLY IN THE M1 MODE.
There is no M1 mode on board, and there hasn't been for decades.

Or, as Maciej always say, t'=t.
You would quote Malicious Maciej for justification?  That fool has been
posting lies for decades also.

Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.
Hertz is the one with buttHertz.  Weird Wozniak believes Newtonian
physics
is proved because t' = t, but like ButtHertz, he doesn't define his
terms
correctly, or at all.  It's unclear whether ButtHertz is malicious or
just
incredibly stupid.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
15 Mar 25 * Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.63rhertz
15 Mar 25 +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.6gharnagel
15 Mar 25 i+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2rhertz
16 Mar 25 ii`- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1J. J. Lodder
15 Mar 25 i`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.3Maciej Wozniak
16 Mar 25 i `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2rhertz
16 Mar 25 i  `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1gharnagel
16 Mar 25 +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.55rhertz
16 Mar 25 i+- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1LaurenceClarkCrossen
17 Mar 25 i+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.6LaurenceClarkCrossen
17 Mar 25 ii`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.5Ross Finlayson
18 Mar 25 ii `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.4Ross Finlayson
19 Mar 25 ii  `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.3Ross Finlayson
30 Mar 25 ii   +- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Ross Finlayson
5 Apr20:31 ii   `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Ross Finlayson
17 Mar 25 i`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.47Paul.B.Andersen
18 Mar 25 i `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.46rhertz
18 Mar 25 i  `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.45Paul.B.Andersen
18 Mar 25 i   `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.44rhertz
18 Mar 25 i    `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.43rhertz
18 Mar 25 i     +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.41gharnagel
18 Mar 25 i     i`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.40rhertz
18 Mar 25 i     i `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.39gharnagel
19 Mar 25 i     i  +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.37rhertz
19 Mar 25 i     i  i+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.4gharnagel
19 Mar 25 i     i  ii+- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
19 Mar 25 i     i  ii`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2rhertz
19 Mar 25 i     i  ii `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1gharnagel
19 Mar 25 i     i  i+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.31Paul.B.Andersen
19 Mar 25 i     i  ii+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.27rhertz
20 Mar 25 i     i  iii+- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1gharnagel
20 Mar 25 i     i  iii`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.25Paul.B.Andersen
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2Python
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii i`- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.21rhertz
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii i+* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.4gharnagel
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii ii`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.3rhertz
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii ii `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2gharnagel
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii ii  `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii i`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.16Paul.B.Andersen
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii i `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.15rhertz
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  +* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.9rhertz
22 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i+- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
22 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.7Paul.B.Andersen
22 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.6rhertz
23 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i  `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.5rhertz
23 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i   `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.4rhertz
24 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i    `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.3Paul.B.Andersen
24 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i     `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2rhertz
24 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  i      `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Codey Stamatelos Kang
22 Mar 25 i     i  iii i  `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.5Paul.B.Andersen
22 Mar 25 i     i  iii i   `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.4rhertz
23 Mar 25 i     i  iii i    `* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.3Paul.B.Andersen
24 Mar 25 i     i  iii i     +- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1rhertz
24 Mar 25 i     i  iii i     `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
21 Mar 25 i     i  iii `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
19 Mar 25 i     i  ii+- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
20 Mar 25 i     i  ii`* Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.2J. J. Lodder
20 Mar 25 i     i  ii `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
19 Mar 25 i     i  i`- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Paul.B.Andersen
19 Mar 25 i     i  `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Maciej Wozniak
18 Mar 25 i     `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1Paul.B.Andersen
17 Mar 25 `- Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.1rhertz

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal