Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

So Henri Wilson's theory predicts that rubidium glass cell oscillators
and
cesium beam clocks should exhibit MAJOR differences in behavior as they
are
lifted into orbit. Cesium beam clocks should not require any correction
for
(ahem) "gravitational stress" at all, while rubidium clocks should
require
correction by an amount that (just coincidentally) happens to be
approximately the same as what Henri considers the (ahem) bogus
prediction
of GR.

Of course. Henri's suggestion would mean Cs clocks should
show no rate change at all.

By the way, I used the work "approximately" because the agreement with GR
has ONLY been established to within the limits of accuracy of the atomic
clocks.

For the ensemble of orbiting GPS clocks as a whole, the agreement with GR
has only been established to about 99.997% or so. (I can't seem to locate
the link where I saw the analysis on this. Sorry. When I find it, I'll post
it.)

Anyway, 99.997% agreement for the total ensemble of orbiting clocks is not
good enough for Henri. Sheer coincidence.

Minor Crank

"Minor Crank" wrote in message news:4KQYa.65044$cF.21863@rwcrnsc53...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

So Henri Wilson's theory predicts that rubidium glass cell oscillators and
cesium beam clocks should exhibit MAJOR differences in behavior as they are
lifted into orbit. Cesium beam clocks should not require any correction for
(ahem) "gravitational stress" at all, while rubidium clocks should require
correction by an amount that (just coincidentally) happens to be
approximately the same as what Henri considers the (ahem) bogus prediction
of GR.

Of course. Henri's suggestion would mean Cs clocks should
show no rate change at all.

By the way, I used the work "approximately" because the agreement with GR
has ONLY been established to within the limits of accuracy of the atomic
clocks.

Understood. It is sometimes difficult to hit the right balance
between simplification and thoroughness.

For the ensemble of orbiting GPS clocks as a whole, the agreement with GR
has only been established to about 99.997% or so. (I can't seem to locate
the link where I saw the analysis on this. Sorry. When I find it, I'll post
it.)

Thanks, I'd appreciate that. I think that part of the problem
is establishing the gravitational environment since surface
features and subterranean density variations have an effect
but I would like to see what other aspects limit the analysis.

Anyway, 99.997% agreement for the total ensemble of orbiting clocks is not
good enough for Henri. Sheer coincidence.

Absolutely, what a fluke!

best regards
George

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jul 2003 22:40:34 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


I said you were confused wrt my statement and my demo. I didn't accuse you of
'bad english.'

My source dependency demo merely shows what would happen if LONG RANGE source
dependency was real. It supports the view that it cannot be real.

Henri, I'm confused with nothing. This is you who is confused with
your contradictive opinions. One time my "poor English" doesn't excuse
me, next time you never blamed me for it. One time your animations
substantiate the negative result of MMX, next time they merely show
what would happen should the long-range source dependence be real, and
so on. Simpler, you are confirming that it's incorrect to add the
light velocity to the source velocity. This is just what I say you
every time and encounter your strong opposition. Truly, it isn't
worthy of so much work to create animations for this aim. Wouldn't it
be simpler to formulate correctly the statement of your problem and to
do not avoid the questions? ;-)

Sergey, my H-aether theory is based on the principle that light speed is
locally source dependent. It starts out at c relative to its source but settles
down eventually to the same speed as other EM passing through a particular
point.

If you are saying of the near and far fields of the source, then,
first, in the near field (only about 10 wavelengths) the EM wave
velocity is not constant. These experiments were conducted as long ago
as in 50th years. You may want to see the references in our paper

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...15/taew15.html

If you look at Fig. 4 of that paper, you will see that the wave
velocity doesn't begin with c. Second, you are applying your results
to astronomic distances. So you have to prove that the wave and source
velocities are added, and to show, how this summation is 'lost' with
the distance. Until you haven't this rigorously proven theoretically,
your demos are only nice pictures, and you have no right to conclude
on their basis, as to MMX in that number. ;-) I said you it many
times, you don't want to hear and are only juggling with words in
order to keep your 'theory' doing not grounding it, doing not tying it
to real phenomena. These are your issues, as well as to hear either to
pout your lips. I'm neither cold nor hot of it. Would you be 'a clever
boy', you would long ago stop posing and think of what I said you.

I will eventually get around to putting it on my website.

So you still have not what to share with colleagues, though the
internet is tolerable to everything. ;-)


The source dependency demo is very informative as it is.

To be informative, something has to be grounded. All the rest is a
chatter. And there is actually too much of it.

It allows one to see
just how light from a complete orbit of a binary star would travel across space
if its velocity (the light's) was dependent on the star's velocity.
A vertical line drawn at any time index shows how many images of the star an
observer at that distance would see.
This is far more useful than any equation.

When building your demos, you saw in them other tasks than you are
saying now. It is seen in all your posts. I can repeat, demos can be
much more useful, only if they have been built on the thoroughly
substantiated solutions. Otherwise they are no more than an
abstraction having nothing to do with physics, and having zero
informativeness. I pity much your time and efforts which you spend
additionally, insisting without any wish to understand, what you are
spoken about.


Maybe you did not understand the demo.

I understood. It remains only, you to understand what I say you so
long time. ;-)

Sergey.


Sergey.




The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 03:36:41 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

The clocks measure a characteristic frequency of caesium or rubidium
atoms. Those atoms are in free fall even in a clock on the ground,
either in a beam or, in more modern instruments, a fountain.

That is a correct statement for a cesium beam clock (atoms are in free fall
as they cross the Ramsey cavity) or cesium fountain clock. But rubidium
glass cell oscillators are of different construction, and the atoms are not
in free fall within the glass cell.

So Henri Wilson's theory predicts that rubidium glass cell oscillators and
cesium beam clocks should exhibit MAJOR differences in behavior as they are
lifted into orbit. Cesium beam clocks should not require any correction for
(ahem) "gravitational stress" at all, while rubidium clocks should require
correction by an amount that (just coincidentally) happens to be
approximately the same as what Henri considers the (ahem) bogus prediction
of GR.

That is an undeniable, absolute prediction of Henri Wilson's theory, which
is, of course, contradicted by observation. Therefore Henri's theory is
disproven, wrong, false, idiotic, and just plain stoopid.

Crank I have told you I don't make any claims as to why the clocks change their
rates in free fall. The plain observed fact is that they DO.

No maths theory can CAUSE a physical change.


Minor Crank




Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:04:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

So Henri Wilson's theory predicts that rubidium glass cell oscillators
and
cesium beam clocks should exhibit MAJOR differences in behavior as they
are
lifted into orbit. Cesium beam clocks should not require any correction
for
(ahem) "gravitational stress" at all, while rubidium clocks should
require
correction by an amount that (just coincidentally) happens to be
approximately the same as what Henri considers the (ahem) bogus
prediction
of GR.

Of course. Henri's suggestion would mean Cs clocks should
show no rate change at all.

By the way, I used the work "approximately" because the agreement with GR
has ONLY been established to within the limits of accuracy of the atomic
clocks.

For the ensemble of orbiting GPS clocks as a whole, the agreement with GR
has only been established to about 99.997% or so. (I can't seem to locate
the link where I saw the analysis on this. Sorry. When I find it, I'll post
it.)

Anyway, 99.997% agreement for the total ensemble of orbiting clocks is not
good enough for Henri. Sheer coincidence.

NO. Sheer fiddling of results in order to get funding.
It's easy when you know the answer the establishment mafia wants.


Minor Crank




Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:38:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:41:36 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
The clocks are moving at about 3700 m/s
In 10us, they move 3.7 cms.

That's the navigational error per orbit if the GR correction is omitted. It is
negligible since the clocks are software corrected regularly and empirically.

The figure you are quoting is 20us x the speed of light.

I am indeed. Your location is found by multiplying the time it takes
for the signal to reach you by the speed of the signal for each
satellite and then solving for the place and time where all those
ranges would be correct. You have a 3.7cm error in the location of
the satellite and a 6km error in your distance from it.

Absolute nonsense.
The clock sends its time signal when it is about 7 cms from where you think it
is.
That is the order of your navigation error.

No that is only the error in the satellite position. I suggest
you find out how a GPS receiver uses pseudo-range information
to give you your location.

Daily empirical corrections easily remedy this.


That is not important.

If corrections to the satellite time are needed, they not corrected
simultaneously so you could have an accurate range from one satellite
together with a 6km error in the range from another. What does that
do to the solution for your location?

nonsense. ocation effectively uses old fashioned triangulation. Times cancel
out.

They only cancel if the errors are exactly the same for all satellites.
That would not be the case if they ran at the wrong rate and had to be
periodically corrected unless all the corrections were applied at
exactly the same instant no matter where the satellite was in its orbit.

The clocks PHYSICALLY change. That's what is observed from the ground.

What is observed is that the rate compared to a ground clock differs
by the amount due to GR. There is no systematic additional physical
change that I am aware of, though obviously some clocks don't perform
as well as they should. That is reported in "health" messages.

The GO
counts every tick emitted by the OC. Consider an observer traveliing with the
OC. Both the GO and the OO have a common 'clock'; one orbit.

The clock is not common, the orbiting and ground observers measure
the orbit as having different durations (and lengths).

If the clock rates were originally set at N ticks per (intended) orbit period
and the OC rate changes to N+n ticks when in free fall, then the GO counts N+n
ticks per orbit.

The ground observer sees a ground clock emit N ticks in T seconds by
his clock so he measures a rate of k = N/T.

The ground observer (GO) sees the orbiting clock (OC) emit N+n ticks
in an orbit lasting T seconds by his ground clock (GC).

The orbiting observer (OO) also sees N+n ticks emitted per orbit - no
fairies.

GR tells us that the time taken for the orbit as observed by the OO
should be T+t seconds. The measured rate of ticks per unit proper
time for the orbiting clock is then k'=(N+n)/(T+t).

If k' k then the OC is ticking too fast - a physical change.
If k' k then the OC is ticking too slow - a physical change.

When we compare k' with k, we actually find they are the same to
within the stability of the clocks.

[Note, n is measured, t is predicted so this is not circular.]

The GO concludes that the OC has PHYSICALLY changed its rate relative to the
original ground frame.

That depends on what you mean by PHYSICAL. If k'=k the rates
differ but the clock is working as it should so by my definition
it is not a physical change, only one of projection. It is quite
real nonetheless.

Unless of course, you believe in th 'tick fairies' like most of your colleagues
seem to.

Nope, not me. I believe the geometry of spacetime is not
as you assume. Extend Pythagoras from:

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2

to:

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2

and everything else follows. No fairies required.

George



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...

NO. Sheer fiddling of results in order to get funding.
It's easy when you know the answer the establishment mafia wants.

OK. Why don't YOU provide a calculation of what ought to be observed.

Minor Crank

On 8 Aug 2003 13:41:39 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jul 2003 22:40:34 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


I said you were confused wrt my statement and my demo. I didn't accuse you of
'bad english.'

My source dependency demo merely shows what would happen if LONG RANGE source
dependency was real. It supports the view that it cannot be real.

Henri, I'm confused with nothing. This is you who is confused with
your contradictive opinions. One time my "poor English" doesn't excuse
me, next time you never blamed me for it. One time your animations
substantiate the negative result of MMX, next time they merely show
what would happen should the long-range source dependence be real, and
so on. Simpler, you are confirming that it's incorrect to add the
light velocity to the source velocity. This is just what I say you
every time and encounter your strong opposition. Truly, it isn't
worthy of so much work to create animations for this aim. Wouldn't it
be simpler to formulate correctly the statement of your problem and to
do not avoid the questions? ;-)

Sergey, my H-aether theory is based on the principle that light speed is
locally source dependent. It starts out at c relative to its source but settles
down eventually to the same speed as other EM passing through a particular
point.

If you are saying of the near and far fields of the source, then,
first, in the near field (only about 10 wavelengths) the EM wave
velocity is not constant. These experiments were conducted as long ago
as in 50th years. You may want to see the references in our paper

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...15/taew15.html

If you look at Fig. 4 of that paper, you will see that the wave
velocity doesn't begin with c. Second, you are applying your results
to astronomic distances. So you have to prove that the wave and source
velocities are added, and to show, how this summation is 'lost' with
the distance. Until you haven't this rigorously proven theoretically,
your demos are only nice pictures, and you have no right to conclude
on their basis, as to MMX in that number. ;-) I said you it many
times, you don't want to hear and are only juggling with words in
order to keep your 'theory' doing not grounding it, doing not tying it
to real phenomena. These are your issues, as well as to hear either to
pout your lips. I'm neither cold nor hot of it. Would you be 'a clever
boy', you would long ago stop posing and think of what I said you.

I will eventually get around to putting it on my website.

So you still have not what to share with colleagues, though the
internet is tolerable to everything. ;-)

Sergey, when a theory is in its infancy, one should not say too much about it
or make too many claims. That is the state of my H-aether. So far it appears to
explain all the observational evidence. Why should you want to reject it now?

Sure, I have to find a mechanism by which a light ray is influenced by other EM
fields but is still able to traverse long distances without becoming dispersed.
After all, we witness extinction in the earth's atmosphere and this does NOT
affect the clarity of distant galaxies all that much.




The source dependency demo is very informative as it is.

To be informative, something has to be grounded. All the rest is a
chatter. And there is actually too much of it.

It allows one to see
just how light from a complete orbit of a binary star would travel across space
if its velocity (the light's) was dependent on the star's velocity.
A vertical line drawn at any time index shows how many images of the star an
observer at that distance would see.
This is far more useful than any equation.

When building your demos, you saw in them other tasks than you are
saying now. It is seen in all your posts. I can repeat, demos can be
much more useful, only if they have been built on the thoroughly
substantiated solutions. Otherwise they are no more than an
abstraction having nothing to do with physics, and having zero
informativeness. I pity much your time and efforts which you spend
additionally, insisting without any wish to understand, what you are
spoken about.

Sergey, none of my demos is related to my H-aetehr theory.
You are very confused. The source dependency demo is purely classical.



Maybe you did not understand the demo.

I understood. It remains only, you to understand what I say you so
long time. ;-)

What is strange about that demo?
It is quite straightfoward.


Sergey.


Sergey.


Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:38:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:41:36 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
The clocks are moving at about 3700 m/s
In 10us, they move 3.7 cms.

That's the navigational error per orbit if the GR correction is omitted. It is
negligible since the clocks are software corrected regularly and empirically.

The figure you are quoting is 20us x the speed of light.

I am indeed. Your location is found by multiplying the time it takes
for the signal to reach you by the speed of the signal for each
satellite and then solving for the place and time where all those
ranges would be correct. You have a 3.7cm error in the location of
the satellite and a 6km error in your distance from it.

Absolute nonsense.
The clock sends its time signal when it is about 7 cms from where you think it
is.
That is the order of your navigation error.

No that is only the error in the satellite position. I suggest
you find out how a GPS receiver uses pseudo-range information
to give you your location.

No George you have it all wrong.

If the OC is 7cms away from where it should be when it sends its time signal to
the GO, that is the error incurred by the GO in calculating position.

You are a typical indoctrinated GRian who cannot accept the truth no matter how
obvious it may be.

Daily empirical corrections easily remedy this.


That is not important.

If corrections to the satellite time are needed, they not corrected
simultaneously so you could have an accurate range from one satellite
together with a 6km error in the range from another. What does that
do to the solution for your location?

nonsense. ocation effectively uses old fashioned triangulation. Times cancel
out.

They only cancel if the errors are exactly the same for all satellites.
That would not be the case if they ran at the wrong rate and had to be
periodically corrected unless all the corrections were applied at
exactly the same instant no matter where the satellite was in its orbit.

All the OC's run at the same rate. All their 'absolute' readings are known and
regularly synched empirically.


The clocks PHYSICALLY change. That's what is observed from the ground.

What is observed is that the rate compared to a ground clock differs
by the amount due to GR. There is no systematic additional physical
change that I am aware of, though obviously some clocks don't perform
as well as they should. That is reported in "health" messages.

A GR equation DOES NOT cause any PHYSICAL change.

THE CLOCKS PHYSICALLY CHANGE WHEN IN FREE FALL.


The GO
counts every tick emitted by the OC. Consider an observer traveliing with the
OC. Both the GO and the OO have a common 'clock'; one orbit.

The clock is not common, the orbiting and ground observers measure
the orbit as having different durations (and lengths).

You are really incapable George. The orbit IS the common unit of time duration.


If the clock rates were originally set at N ticks per (intended) orbit period
and the OC rate changes to N+n ticks when in free fall, then the GO counts N+n
ticks per orbit.

The ground observer sees a ground clock emit N ticks in T seconds by
his clock so he measures a rate of k = N/T.

His clock runs at N ticks per ONE ORBIT.
An observer traveling with the OC counts N+n ticks per orbit.

Therefore the OO knows that his clock rate has physically changed.


The ground observer (GO) sees the orbiting clock (OC) emit N+n ticks
in an orbit lasting T seconds by his ground clock (GC).

The orbiting observer (OO) also sees N+n ticks emitted per orbit - no
fairies.

GR tells us that the time taken for the orbit as observed by the OO
should be T+t seconds. The measured rate of ticks per unit proper
time for the orbiting clock is then k'=(N+n)/(T+t).

If k' k then the OC is ticking too fast - a physical change.
If k' k then the OC is ticking too slow - a physical change.

When we compare k' with k, we actually find they are the same to
within the stability of the clocks.

[Note, n is measured, t is predicted so this is not circular.]

Of course it is circular. GR denies the fact that the gravitational redshift is
caused by a change in light speed. It then wrongly assumes that clock 'tick
rates' will be affected in the same way as individual photons.

The fact that the GPS clocks change in free fall by roughly the amount
presicted by GR (when the fictitious velocity correction is included) is purely
coincidental.



The GO concludes that the OC has PHYSICALLY changed its rate relative to the
original ground frame.

That depends on what you mean by PHYSICAL. If k'=k the rates
differ but the clock is working as it should so by my definition
it is not a physical change, only one of projection. It is quite
real nonetheless.

It has clearly changed its rate wrt the original.


Unless of course, you believe in th 'tick fairies' like most of your colleagues
seem to.

Nope, not me. I believe the geometry of spacetime is not
as you assume. Extend Pythagoras from:

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2

to:

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2

and everything else follows. No fairies required.

Have you ever asked yourself what "x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2" signifies.

It is just the distance between a real and an observed length.
It is NOT a 4D constuct.
'ct' is merely a distance.

What we observe using EM DOES not define physical reality.


George



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 04:42:21 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .

Crank I have told you I don't make any claims as to why the clocks change
their
rates in free fall.

Don't lie.

You have repeatedly stated that the clocks change their rate due to the
differences in gravitational stresses experienced by atoms in a free fall
environment versus the surface of the earth.

There could be many explanations.
The plain fact is they do change.

Your idea that they don't change but are in a different 'time regime' falls
flat when the ORBIT is used as a universal clock (with period 1).


Minor Crank




Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm