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 : hertz778 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (rhertz)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 21. Mar 2025, 16:15:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <630487f40b7c6e60b736ba28b0da41ba@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
TO gharnagel and Paul. I copy here part of gharnagel last post, in
order to avoid a lengthy reply. After that C&P, I'll address its
content.
**************************************************************
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.
**************************************************************
gharnagel, with a heavy heart I've to tell you that you are A FUCKING
RETARDED, struggling to fight your COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
If the master TCXO clock ON THE GPS SV is working in M2 mode,
at 10,229,999.995430 Hz, ALL THE CARRIER FREQUENCIES SYNTHESIZED FROM IT
have a LOWER NOMINAL VALUE than those of the twin TCXO working on Earth.
Your STUPID RELATIVITY SAYS THAT THE PERCEPTION OF FREQUENCIES AT GROUND
LEVEL
are MULTIPLES of the local 10,230,000.000000 Hz frequency. DO YOU ACCEPT
THIS?
So, according to your FUCKING RELATIVITY and Schwarzschild, the proper
frequencies of both clocks are:
M1 frequency at Earth's station.
M2 frequency at GPS SV.
The Δf/f = -4.4647E-10  frequency shift allegedly caused by BLUE
SHIFTING and
SR, which causes the 38.5 usec difference in the daily accumulation of
counts from the SV clock working at M1 frequency DISAPPEAR if the L1
carrier is recovered at ground level and the frequency of
10,230,000.000000 Hz is also recovered, dividing the L1 nominal
frequency by 154 (EXACTLY).
The scenario, in your rotten relativistic brain, is:
The local count in the orbiting GPS SV, for 86400 sec, is
883,871,999,608 pulses, while the daily local count at ground station is
883,872,000,000 pulses.
The clock at the GPS SV is locally counting LESS PULSES (38.5 us) than
the clock at ground station. It's the MATHEMAGICS OF RELATIVITY that
makes this difference disappear while radiating L1 carrier from the GPS
SV to the ground station. So, the CLAIM IS THAT the SV clock HAS TO BE
WORKING AT M2 FREQUENCY.
The difference digital counters would register is of 395 pulses which,
with a period of 97.7517106549365 ns gives a daily difference of
(NEGATIVE)
-38.5970696442754 us, which is what relativists claim as the "error"
between both clocks.
If you have (and you do since the first GPS SV) a second clock
(Rubidium) on the satellite, IT WILL LOCALLY COUNT THE SAME 86,400
SECONDS than the Cs clock on the Earth station.
If you don't understand the above, nothing I can do to fix your deviated
mind.
When the onboard Rubidium clock (used as an arbiter) marks 86,400 sec,
the counter associated with the onboard Cesium clock will register:
(86,400 - 38.5970696442754 X 10^-06) SECONDS.
Are you really that kind of imbecile that CAN'T UNDERSTAND the above,
which was written following the RULES that relativists claim? So much of
an idiot are you?
I'm not going to waste more time with you, gharnagel. I prefer to teach
differential geometry to my dog, which I'm sure it will ace it, instead
of you.

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