More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy.

On 11.04.2011 23:54, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:19:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 08.04.2011 23:26, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Clocks run slightly faster when in free fall...not surprising. THey
are given a correction before launch to make subsequent software
adjustments smaller. Some idiot claied the change in rate had
something to do with GR so they applied the 'GR (BaTh) correction'.

Quite.
You have now confirmed that you know that the clocks
are adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10 befaur launch.
This factor was obviously not guessed, it was calculated
using GR.

By an Einstein wrorshipper.

It was obviously calculated by a person who knew how to do it,
that is one with good knowledge of the only theory which can
give precise prediction.
If you had asked an 'anti-Einsteinian' like RM Rabbidge, Ken Seto,
Koobee Wubblee, Androcles or Pencho Valev to calculate what
the correction should be, the GPS would be an expensive flop.

In reality, it wouldn't have mattered much what the 'correction' had
been as long as it was somewhere around E-10..

Yet another Ralph Rabbidge claim about the GPS.

You will get an opportuinity to defend this claim in the thread:
"The challenge Henry Wilson is fleeing"


It wouldn't matter what the actual rates are so long as they are all
the same and in absolute synch.

It doesn't matter what the actually rate is as long as
the rate is known. But since the clocks are counting seconds,
it would be very unpractial if the duration of these seconds
were different from seconds on the ground, don't you think?

Don't you understand what 'software correction' means?

You have now confirmed that you know that the clocks
must be 'in absolute synch' with the GPS coordinated time.
(In sync within 100 ns)

Corrections and adjustments are
applied several times in each orbit.

Are they, Henry?
Not 'continuously'?

Drift is corrected three times per orbit IIRC.

Rate doesn't have to be corrected very often once it has been
iinitially set to that of all the others.

By how much would the time reported by the satellite
drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
if the clock rate weren't corrected by the GR correction
factor?


Paul, the atomic clocks drives secondary crystal clock. The synch
between the two is easily software adjusted by dropping or adding a
'tick' as required.
That is done when the clock is positioned in orbit.

So now we have gone from:
"The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
to:
"it wouldn't have mattered much what the 'correction'
had been as long as it was somewhere around E-10"

and from:
"The clock is software adjusted continuously"
to:
"Drift is corrected three times per orbit IIRC"
and:
"Rate doesn't have to be corrected very often"

I sense that you are slowly backing out,
hoping that nobody will notice.
You will have to creep backwards a bit further
before you get it right, though.

See the thread:
"The challenge Henry Wilson is fleeing"
I will give a rather extensive response there.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Apr 6, 3:47*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:04*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:25 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

What makes you think an outsider like yourself matters one bit?

As far as I can tell, you'd be treated pretty much the same if you had
discovered the holy grail and were willing to share away all of it
with no further mention of yourself.

Yes, apparently their Einstein is the true God of humanity and of all
that's cosmic. Go figure, who knew.

If light is ballistic, we will get star curves like these:www.scisite.info/fig2.jpg

...and what do you know? THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE DO GET.

I do agree that a photon is a nonzero mass and it thereby has a
trajectory potential that's affected by gravity, of which the dark/
clear parts of our universe offers that sufficient mass to interact
with.

This has nothing to do with gravity.
If a star is in orbit, its light towards us travels at c+vsin(t/T)
Faster light encroaches on the slower and gives the impression of a
periodic brighness variation when viewed by a distant observer.

THe above curves are produced by simulating that kind of star
behavior.

However, star + planet interactions are going to make it tough to
isolate, especially if the planets are big and reflective.

How does the gravity lens work with your interpretation of a photon
trajectory?

The same as it would if you fired a bullet past the sun's edge.
...except that because of the question mark over light's mass, *there
is a possibility that light accelerates differently in a force field
than does ordinary matter.
For matter, dv/dt = g
For light, it could be dv/dt= 2g or 1.1g or who knows what.

THe Pound&Rebka experiment measured this but not very conclusively.

That's very interesting, and perhaps as good of interpretation as
any. *I would have to agree and/or argue that everything is in orbit
around something.

However, most main sequence stars (perhaps at least more than half)
do have planets, or at least did have before going red giant and then
turning into something small and compact.

How far and fast can a photon of whatever wavelength travel if there
were nothing molecular in its path? (would you consider an
interpretation of zero and zero?)

Does dark/clear matter count as something 2D quantum string like
molecular?

The same question except for its having 9.46e16 molecular encounters
directly in its path?

Once again, except this time each photon is given 9.46e32 molecular
items encountered?

How much energy does an original photon give up or modulate per
molecular encounter?

How much photon transit time is taken up by each molecular encounter?

How much trajectory diversion is caused by each molecular encounter?

42

42 what?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:37:39 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Apr 6, 3:47*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:04*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:25 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:59:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

What makes you think an outsider like yourself matters one bit?

As far as I can tell, you'd be treated pretty much the same if you had
discovered the holy grail and were willing to share away all of it
with no further mention of yourself.

Yes, apparently their Einstein is the true God of humanity and of all
that's cosmic. Go figure, who knew.

If light is ballistic, we will get star curves like these:www.scisite.info/fig2.jpg

...and what do you know? THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE DO GET.

I do agree that a photon is a nonzero mass and it thereby has a
trajectory potential that's affected by gravity, of which the dark/
clear parts of our universe offers that sufficient mass to interact
with.

This has nothing to do with gravity.
If a star is in orbit, its light towards us travels at c+vsin(t/T)
Faster light encroaches on the slower and gives the impression of a
periodic brighness variation when viewed by a distant observer.

THe above curves are produced by simulating that kind of star
behavior.

However, star + planet interactions are going to make it tough to
isolate, especially if the planets are big and reflective.

How does the gravity lens work with your interpretation of a photon
trajectory?

The same as it would if you fired a bullet past the sun's edge.
...except that because of the question mark over light's mass, *there
is a possibility that light accelerates differently in a force field
than does ordinary matter.
For matter, dv/dt = g
For light, it could be dv/dt= 2g or 1.1g or who knows what.

THe Pound&Rebka experiment measured this but not very conclusively.

That's very interesting, and perhaps as good of interpretation as
any. *I would have to agree and/or argue that everything is in orbit
around something.

However, most main sequence stars (perhaps at least more than half)
do have planets, or at least did have before going red giant and then
turning into something small and compact.

How far and fast can a photon of whatever wavelength travel if there
were nothing molecular in its path? (would you consider an
interpretation of zero and zero?)

Does dark/clear matter count as something 2D quantum string like
molecular?

The same question except for its having 9.46e16 molecular encounters
directly in its path?

Once again, except this time each photon is given 9.46e32 molecular
items encountered?

How much energy does an original photon give up or modulate per
molecular encounter?

How much photon transit time is taken up by each molecular encounter?

How much trajectory diversion is caused by each molecular encounter?

42

42 what?

you asked silly questions....