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 : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul.B.Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 22. Mar 2025, 21:07:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrn52h$kklq$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 21.03.2025 23:17, skrev rhertz:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:43:45 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:24:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:>>>
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
   86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs
Richard hasn't got it.

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be  86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
 A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
 You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!
Richard has still not got it.

 As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
 This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.
 
Richard has still not got it.

 In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
 So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.
 
Richard hasn't got it.
RICHARD, READ This carefully.
 You still don't get it, do you?
 The frequency of the transmitted L1 is 1575.4199992966223 MHz.
During one day, which in the satellite is 86400.000038575 s,
the number of transmitted cycles is:
  1575419999.2966223*86400.000038575 = 136116288000000 cycles
 These cycles are reaching the ground during one day, which on
the ground is 86400 s. This means that the frequency on the ground
is 136116288000000/86400s = 1575420000.0 Hz = 1575.42 MHz
 All the pulses that are emitted during one day, are reaching
the ground during one day. No pulses DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR.
Richard has still not got it.
=================================================================
Now I have repeated the same thing over and over.
So for the last time, let me sum it up:
Below is an "SI-clock" a clock which is calibrated according to SI.
That means that it per definition advances one second per second.

GR predicts that an SI-clock on the geoid will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400 s
>
GR predicts that an SI-clock in GPS orbit will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400*(1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s
The obvious consequence of this is that the clock in the GPS SV
will advance 38.575 μs more per day than the clock on the geoid.
This is cumulative, so after a year the difference between
the SV clock and the ground clock would be ~14 ms.
To make the clocks run synchronously, the rate of the clock in
the SV is adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4669e-10) compared to
an SI clock. Then then SV clock will advance 86400 seconds per day,
and will stay in sync with the clock on the geoid.
The rate adjustment is made to make the SV clock be in sync to UTC.
==================================================================
Since all frequencies in the SV are derived from the same frequency
standard which is adjusted down by ((1-4.4669e-1), this has
the secondary effect that the L1 carrier is emitted as
1575.4199992966223 MHz, and will be 1575.42 MHz measured by UTC.
When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to  Δf/f = ± 1e-7  , up to 200 times the GR correction.
The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.
The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.
------------------------------
I won't bother to comment your confused babble below.
I will laugh at it though!

 Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT, in order to
the L1 carrier be BLUESHIFTED when it reaches ground level (on any GPS
receiver). THIS. PLUS the compensation for SR effects (which were never
accounted by any of you two, idiot clones).
There are no "SR effects."
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

 If M2 mode is switched ON before launch, the master frequency would be
LOWER than 10.23 Mhz while orbiting (REDSHIFTING). So, when associated
L1 carrier that is generated while in orbit reach ground level, it would
suffer BLUESHIFTING, compensating for your alleged GR correction. It
would INVALIDATE the change to M2 frequency PRIOR TO LAUNCHING. Then,
when is the SV clock switched to M2?
 PLUS, how does the SR effect work in non-inertial motion? The orbital
motion has an acceleration component, which doesn't exist under SR. But,
SOMEHOW, the frequency received by the GPS receiver is claimed to be
EXACTLY 1575.42 MHz, which is locally regenerated and divided by 154,
obtaining 10.23 Mhz at ground level (EXACTLY).
 > > Your fucking theory has more holes than matter.
 Plus, using a rubidium clock as a reference for 86,400 seconds in the SV
settles any doubt about HOW a fucking day is measured in the SV and at
the Earth's station. No mistakes here, and the orbiting counter REGISTER
38.5 usec LESS, not more.
ROFL

 Imbeciles both of you. Inbreeding too much?
I will say this for you, Richard.
Your ability to stay ignorant no matter what you are told
is really impressing.
Well done, Richard. :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

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