Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 years after,

Den 16.09.2024 23:53, skrev rhertz:

Paul B Andersen wrote:

Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:

>
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Earth's ground) by a factor:
>
Δf/f = Φ/c² =  GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
>
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

 This is wrong.
 Let us compare the proper times of two clocks.
Both are atomic clocks which count seconds as defined by SI.
 Some data:
Geocentric gravitational constant GM = 3.986004418⋅10¹⁴ m³/s²
Speed of light in vacuum c = 299792458 m/s
Sidereal day  tₛ = 86164.0905 s
Equatorial radius of the Earth R = 6378137 m
  Clock C₀ is stationary on the geoid at equator, longitude 0.
The proper time of this clock will for one rotation of
the Earth be τ₀ = 86164.0905 s
 Clock C₁ is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The orbital period p is half a sidereal day, p = 43082.04525 s
The radius of the orbit is then r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m.
 The proper time of this clock to make two orbits around
the Earth will be:
   τ₁ = (1 + (GM/c²)⋅(1/R-1/r)+(v₀²-v₁²)/2c²)⋅τ₀
 where:
The speed of clock C₀ in the ECI frame v₀ = 2πR/tₛ = 465.1011 m/s
The speed of clock C₁ in the ECI frame v₁ = 2πr/p = 3873.8291 m/s
  τ₁ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)⋅τ₀ = 86164.0905 s + 38.49 μs
 Note that τ₁ and τ₀ are invariant proper times.
They are real, there is nothing apparent about them.
 dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰), so C₁ appear to run faster than C₀.

 APPEAR? You are using my expressions 100%: APPEAR; IS PERCEIVED TO BE;
... You are a funny guy.
 

Trying to divert the attention form the fact that I showed you wrong?
Your equation for a satellite with orbital time half a sidereal day
would give:
   Δf/f = 5.2839⋅10⁻¹⁰, the correct is: Δf/f =  4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰
Your equation is wrong because it doesn't contain the kinematic term.
You can't ignore that for a satellite!
Your statement:
  "The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower"
is not the same as my statement:
   "C₁ appear to run faster than C₀"
"slower" isn't 100% the same as "faster"!
Your statement is 100% wrong.
My statement is 100% correct.

>
At ANY CASE, there IS NO experimental proof about any of these two
cases, because the relativity of the pseudoscience that relativity is,
prevents THAT ANY LOCAL MEASURE ONBOARD can be remotely measured from
ANY ground station.

 A GPS satellite sends the exact information of where it is and
what its clock show to the receivers. That is the principle of the GPS.
 And the ground stations which are tracking each satellite for hours
each day can measure the position of satellites, and what their
clocks show. This way they can upload the correction data to
the satellites so their clocks are kept in sync within few ns.
 This is necessary for the GPS to work, which it does, even
if it according to you is impossible.
 

 The corrections ARE NECESSARY TWICE A DAY in order to correct every
onboard atomic clock, so the SLIPS due to flight perturbations, cosmic
and EM radiation PLUS natural short-term instabilities on each one. You
should know better about short-term jumps in ANY ATOMIC CLOCK, which (if
not corrected) would make each clock frequency randomly drift from the
others. And, as a digital clock is a counter, those instabilities
ACCUMULATE. So, from Earth, corrections are made constantly to have the
entire network in sync all the time.

The SV clock is not corrected while the SV is in service.
I have told you before:
The monitor stations upload parameters in a correction polynomial
to the SV, typically once a day. The SV downloads these parameters
to the receiver. The receiver calculate the correction to add to
the SV-clock time received from the SV.
One parameter in the correction polynomial is the "clock offset".
It simply says how wrong the clock is, and is added to the SV-clock
time received from the SV.
In the GPS, the number of bits in the register containing the parameter
is so that the "clock offset" must be less than ~1 ms, or the register
will overflow. That means that the SV clock must be less than 1 ms
off sync.
If the SV clock was not corrected by the GR correction (1-4.4647⋅10⁻¹⁰)
the "clock offset" register would overflow after less than 25 days.
But the SV clocks can run for years without corrections.

Since the clock C₁ has exactly the same orbital data as a GPS satellite,
dτ₁/τ₀ is the same as a GPS satellite where the rate of the clock
is not adjusted down.
 Such a GPS satellite was in orbit 1977
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
 It confirmed GR's prediction.

 WERE YOU THERE WITNESSING THAT CRAPPY TEST? NO! YOU JUST BELIEVE IT.

What a stupid remark! :-D
Of course I believe it.
This is not a test of GR, it is a test of a GPS satellite.
The engineers that built the satellite were not convinced
that the GR prediction was right, so the satellite was
launched with no correction, but it contained a frequency
synthesiser which could be switched on and lower the frequency
by Δf/f = -4.45⋅10⁻¹⁰
It was run for some time without correction.
See fig 10. It shows  what was measured during 6 days.
The frequency was Δf/f = 4.425⋅10⁻¹⁰ too high.
When they switched on the synthesiser they measured
Δf/f = -3.1⋅10⁻¹², see fig 21.
The engineers who made this report didn't care if the GR
prediction was right or wrong, their only concern was to get
the satellite to work. They found that the GR-correction was
necessary to make the satellite work.
It is ridiculous to claim that they were member of a MAFIA,
and profit from it,  because the different results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity.
You must be pretty stupid if you don't believe it.

>
In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative difference
in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are sent back to the
ground lab for comparisons, because it violates the purity of the theory
in this way: Relativity formulae are ANALOG, while data stored in
orbiting clocks is DIGITAL.

 What an idiotic idea. 😂
 t = 1234 s are digital data
 How would you store analog data?
As a voltage in a capacitor?
Would that keep the the theory pure?
 

Before high speed digital counters (started around 1961, at 10 Mhz top),
there were analog computers for more than 60 years (since 1900). HUGE
and very costly ANALOG COMPUTERS, capable of iterations and recursion.
 Data was stored in accurate mechanical springs, LIKE the ones used in
pocket and wristwatches TO STORE DATA, plus mechanical latches.
 You REALLY need to read about history of science, relativistic viking.
 Do you pretend TO TELL EVERYONE HERE that, before digital counters, to
believe in relativity was an ACT OF FAITH for 50 years? You are
confirming that relativists are really a bunch of retarded.
 Probably, you and them evolved from Neardenthal sub-humans, that did
mate with some Cro-magnon people.
 And that happened in continental Europe, you know? In the forests there,
the two species mated.
 Did you verify your DNA, to trace broken links? Because that could
explain a lot, Paul.

Is this irrelevant babble supposed to be a defence of this
incredible stupid statement of yours?
"In the case of orbiting clocks, the theoretical accumulative
  difference in TIME ELAPSED is questionable IF such clocks are
  sent back to the ground lab for comparisons, because it violates
  the purity of the theory in this way: Relativity formulae are
  ANALOG, while data stored in orbiting clocks is DIGITAL."
Maybe you will another attempt to explain why this statement is true?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/