Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

sue jahn wrote:
"bz" wrote in message 98.139...

Notice that the frequency depends on the isotope. This implies that
different clocks can be constructed using differnent isotopes of the same
element and as well as by using different elements.

This gives a wide range of possible DIFFERENT clocks that can be compared
with each other to determine their 'sensitivity' to ???/SR/GR/EEP effects.

We do know that at least two different types of clocks show similar
effects. You keep saying things that indicate that you do NOT believe that
Einstein's SR/GR/EEP explains the change in the clock rate. You also cite
papers and baseballs in a way that indicates to me that you do not think
that gravity is making the frequency appear to change due to doppler
effect.

Make that at least three type of clocks, Hydrogen, Rubidium and Cs 133.

To what do you attribute the changes that have been observed?


They are easily attributable to Newton's second law. Mass of the
atomic entites is one of the factors in the timing of the hyperfinet transition.
GR, as you know can derive Newton's laws.

Can you show us how?
Since you say it is easy, it should not be to much to ask.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:
"bz" wrote in message 98.139...

Notice that the frequency depends on the isotope. This implies that
different clocks can be constructed using differnent isotopes of the same
element and as well as by using different elements.

This gives a wide range of possible DIFFERENT clocks that can be compared
with each other to determine their 'sensitivity' to ???/SR/GR/EEP effects.

We do know that at least two different types of clocks show similar
effects. You keep saying things that indicate that you do NOT believe that
Einstein's SR/GR/EEP explains the change in the clock rate. You also cite
papers and baseballs in a way that indicates to me that you do not think
that gravity is making the frequency appear to change due to doppler
effect.

Make that at least three type of clocks, Hydrogen, Rubidium and Cs 133.

What is the mass of the protons and electrons in each one ?
http://www.answers.com/topic/hyperfine-structure

Sue...



To what do you attribute the changes that have been observed?


They are easily attributable to Newton's second law. Mass of the
atomic entites is one of the factors in the timing of the hyperfinet transition.
GR, as you know can derive Newton's laws.

Can you show us how?
Since you say it is easy, it should not be to much to ask.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

Sue... wrote:

The principle of local Lorentz invariance states
that the outcome of any local non-gravitational
experiment carried out in a freely falling reference
frame is independent of the velocity of that frame,
while the principle of local position invariance
holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational
experiment is also independent of where and when in
the universe it is performed. In this context
"local" means confined to a suitably small region
of space and time, while "freely falling" means
falling freely under gravity with no other forces
acting.

Although Einstein used it to derive general
relativity, his equivalence principle implies
only that gravitation must be described by a
"metric theory" - a theory in which matter
responds to the geometry of space-time and
nothing else.
--Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the
Space Sciences and the Department of Physics,
Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1

A fine article.
Clifford M Will goes through a lot of experiments testing GR,
and refers to a number of experiments which are done and
have confirmed GR.


Does he mention GR?

Does he, indeed. :-)

Was your point that GR is well confirmed?


Did I mention GR?


You gave a reference to an article about the testing of GR,
an article which refers to a number of experiments
confirming GR.

I have a number of experiment that confirm Smith charts.
But a reem of confirmed Smith charts tell you nothing about
a particular network. GR can derive Newtons mechanics.

I mentioned LPI not GR. Sorry but you and the popular
press aren't going to find any sound bites and one stop
shopping on the issue.


So I suppose your point was to make us aware of that fact.

So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something
really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated
by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably
lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*.
http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASI...53madrassa.jpg

I haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are babbling about.
And I suppose there is no point in asking what the LPI which
is violated by the GPS is.
You never seem to be able to explain the meaning of your words.


Visit NPL and NIST and learn how clocks work.

When your ignorance about atomic clocks is revealed,
pretend that the ignorance is mine and not yours, eh? :-)

You can google for LPI and relativty if you don't know what it is.

Happy hunting,
Sue...

Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of
the Local Position Invariance principle?

Because the SV clocks are not invariant with position
and fixed length paths can't blue shift to explain the
need for launch presets.

Since we can't fly fountains or free-fall SVs:

This very accurate space clock will be compared
continuously to the SUMO oscillator, and these two clocks
(being fundamentally different) [no mass] will provide a test of "local
position invariance." Comparisons between the space and
earth clocks will yield a related, but important measurement
of the gravitational[*] frequency[*] shift. [not redshift]
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107028




I am not expecting an answer, because you are never

No you are just hoping I won't.

Sue...

able to support your claims.
I am however expecting an irrelevant reference.

And you will live up to my expectations.
Won't you?

Paul

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in news:42e78c1d$0$18641
:

I have seen your work. A pitcher throwing 30 balls per minute and
a catcher at 31 and clocks controlled by spoonbending. LOL
gnaw, no spoonbenders all-owed.


You still haven't said whether you think the Jovian moons or the
Earth's rotation will slow when we connect a clock at altitude
with one on the surface with a torque tube. )

depends on what is on the other end of the torque tube. A 3 sol_mass
neutron star at 300,000 km above the earth's north pole should have some
effect on the rate of all clocks on the earths surface.


Use exacty the SVs clocks you said were "measuring" time.
One in Boulder Co, One in geosynch orbit without the launch preset.
Equip both with dial counters.
If they are both "measuring time" but the orbiting clock is faster
then something has to give. Either Jupiters moon's or the torque tube
that couples the counters.

Sue...






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:22:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single
star or a binary pair.
My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours.

When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted
figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant
brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The
curves are 180 out of phase.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
| brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
| variable star simulation program:
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects
in these cases, Henri? :-)

Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred
parameters for your alleged binary?


Give up Paul. You are starting to sound like a troll who is desperate to use
any tactic to prop up his faith,
The GR correction of GPS clocks is a myth and the BaT can produce observed
brightness variation curves for most stars.

Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh?

You don't like to be asked for concrete examples, do you?
The reason is obvious, of course.
You once gave one, and have regretted it ever since.

HAVE YOU GONE RAVING MAD?



The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are
empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit.

Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured.
The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR
to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand
times better than the size of the "GR-correction".


Nonsense. You are making it up.
No experiment has ever verified this.

Of course not, Henri.
As we all know, the GPS does not work.

That's correct.


So let me rephrase your proof:
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as
predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks,
prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks
is plain nonsense from start to finish."

Satisfied now?


You are dreaming again.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| There is an observer on the ground and another in the
| proposed GPS orbit. Both observers will use the same clock to measure the time
| duration of the GPS orbit.
|
| When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit duration
| is N ticks of the clock.
|
| When the clock is in orbit, both observers agree that the orbit duration is N+n
| ticks of the clock.

This is exactly as predicted by GR, and it is verified by the GPS
within the precision of the clocks.

No it isn't. GR says the clock doesn't physically change, Time does.
GR says an observer traveling with the clock would see no change.
GR make so many ridiculous claims that only a fool would even consider them.

My experiment clearly shows that it is the clock which changes
PHYSICALLY....due to reasons unknown but certainly not related to GR in any
way.

From this, you conclude:
| GR is therefore plain nonsense.....!!!!

Of course! Where did you get the impression that my 'n' has the same value as
the GR prediction?


So your proof boils down to:
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as
predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks,
prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks
is plain nonsense from start to finish."

If clocks behaved as GR predicts, both the OO and te TO would not count N+n
ticks per orbit.
In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched.
......Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you....


Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream?

I think you will need to call your fairies to get out of this one....



Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth.

Of course Henri.
That was what I said, wasn't it?
Nobody can refute your genial proof.


Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't.

Keep asserting, Henri.
Maybe Nature eventually will change one day.

If TIME changed, the OO wouldn't count N+n ticks per orbit, WOULD HE PAUL?


The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway.

The ultimate argument!
Henri finds GR nonsensical.
It must be wrong, then.

It certainly must be.


Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel
like a good laugh.

Keep laughing at what you don't understand, Henri.
It make you look so intelligent.

How exactly DOES GR explain it Paul?
Does the clock physically change or doesn't it?


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

On 27 Jul 2005 00:45:43 -0700, "Eric Gisse" wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:06:43 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different
physical conditions.
This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by
around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.

It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS
orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of
SR/GR/EEP. Right?

Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison.
After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading
and rate anyway.

[snip]

The adjustment is much smaller than the GR correction.

If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you,
by Minor Crank, you would know this.

Geese, if you ever feel like some exercise, why don't you try running around a
London railway station with a large rucksack on your back.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


BTW, what DID you say the reason was?
I must have forgotten.
Was it something about gas which slows down photons
to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted,
but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c?


Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt
little planet Earth.

Indeed.
So ?


They are the only people stupid enough.

One would think physicists would be able to see beyond their own egocentric
desires......but relativists are apparently still under the impression that
they define the centre of the universe.

Well said, Henri.
That the speed of light in vacuum is invariant does obviously
imply that every physicist is the centre of the universe.
But it takes a genius like you to realize that, of course.

That's what LET says.
Have you been converted?

.....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light
traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process.

So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular
direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-)


That's the kind of ridiculous coment that makes me feel SO superior to you
Paul.
Think about it again and hide your head in shame.

Dodn't you understand the consequence of your claim, Henri?
I think you do.

There is no way you can fail to see that the consequence of unifying
"the speed of all light traveling in any particular direction"
is that all light coming from any particular direction have
the same speed.

1) 'tends to unify' does not mean 'co,plete unification'.2) the volumes of
space that are responsible for the tendency towards unity might themselves be
moving wrt little planet Earth.
So the final speed wrt Earth EVEN WITH 100% UNIFICATION can have any value.

So I repeat.
We can conclude that all the light coming from any particular
direction is red shifted by the same amount.

Or maybe you can explain why this does not folow from your claim?

Paul, according to my very plausible and obviously correct theory, light loses
a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom along.

Do you deny that a photon loses momentum when it drags an atom along?

If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt the
source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. As you know small
sections of an exponential can appear fairly linear. Hence the resultant
redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually proportional to distance from source.


Goodbye Big Bang.



Does your foot hurt?


Does your face turn red?

Yes.
As opposed to you, I laugh at what I understand.
Right now I am laughing because I understand the consequence
of your very entertaining claim.

Paul, if the Einsteinian fundamentalists ever decide to suicide bomb their
opponents, why don't you apply for the leading role. You seem to have the
perfect qualifications.


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:10:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

snip

Paul, I'm sure you weren't quite this confused before your recent holiday.

Henri,
The sad thing is that Bz and Andersen are better equipped than most
posters to understand the wave impedance problems with Maxwell's
equations but they would rather blindly follow the "high priests"
of time travel than get to the bottom of the issue. :-(

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
--Albert Einstein

Proven fact is the collection of prejudices acquired by age fourty.
--Somebody smarter than Albert Einstein

Sue...

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


So your proof boils down to:
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as
predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks,
prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks
is plain nonsense from start to finish."


If clocks behaved as GR predicts, both the OO and te TO would not count N+n
ticks per orbit.

Your confusion never cease to amaze. :-)

In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched.

Oh, my dear, Henri. :-)

The ground clock ticks out N ticks per orbit.
The orbiting clock ticks out N+n per orbit.
Facts.
No observer in the universe can disagree about that.

.....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you....

It IS nonsensical.
That you really think "that's GR" demonstrates
that you have no clue whatsoever.
How is it possible to be THIS confused, Henri? :-)

Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream?


I think you will need to call your fairies to get out of this one....

Your tick fairies again, Henri? :-)

See this conversation from October 2004

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| Consider the following scenario.
| We have two identical clocks on the ground, both running
| at the frequency 1MHz. Let's call each cycle a "tick".
| One of the clocks is launched into GPS orbit.
| Let N be the number of ticks counted by the ground
| clock during one orbit of the orbiting clock, as observed
| from the ground.
|
| It is then experimentally verified that the orbiting clock
| will tick out N+19 ticks during one orbit.
|
| - The ground clock can observe that the orbiting clock
| ticks out N+19 ticks while itself is ticking out N ticks.
| - The orbiting clock can observe that the ground clock
| ticks out N ticks while itself is ticking out N+19 ticks.
| - The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us.
| - The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us.
| - The ground clock will measure the average frequency
| of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz.
| - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency
| of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz.
|
| Can you please point out what your 'tick fairies' are
| supposed to do in this scenario?
|
| Are there any missing ticks?
| Are there any ticks to many?
|
| I expect another miserable failure by Henri Wilson.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| No Paul you are actually learning and have eliminated the fairies....

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| This is the very same scenario as always.
| I never saw any fairies in it.
| YOU were the one that asserted their presence.
|
| Am I now to understand that you are retracting that claim?
| Are you admitting that there were no need for any fairies?
| So when you are referring to my "tick fairies", that was
| actually YOUR tick fairies which you now have killed?
|
| Fine. It's settled then. Henri Wilson have given up.
| There never was any need for 'tick fairies.'

Henri Wilson wrote:
| I never DID believe in fairies.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| The point is that you have claimed that the scenario above
| is impossible without those fairies.
|
| You have referred to "Paul's tick faires" enumerable times, Henri.
| The statement that made me respond was:
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| Jesus christ, I do believe Tom has just discovered
| Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies.
|
| But now you have admitted that the scenario above is
| perfectly possible without any fairies.
|
| So will you remember this for the future, and stop referring
| to "Paul's tick fairies", please?
|
| Otherwise I will have to remind you about this scenario again.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again.......
|
| ....unless I have a justifiable reason.

You are hereby reminded about the scenario which that made
you crawl away with your tail between your legs.

And this scenario is exactly the same as your scenario,
the one you think show GR to be nonsense.

The fact is that I showed this scenario in 2003.

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2003:
| Let's make a thought experiment.
| In a GPS satellite, and on the ground we have clocks running at
| 1 MHz, and emitting that frequency.
| Let N be the number of microseconds in one orbit, as measured
| on the ground. That is, every Nth microsecond, the satellite
| is observed to be in the same position.
| So the ground clock counts N us per orbit, and emits N cycles
| On the ground we receive N+19 periods from the satellite.
|
| The satellite clock emits 1 MHz, but it measure one orbit
| to last N+19 us. So it emits N+19 cycles per orbit.
| It receives N cycles from the ground, and will thus observe
| that the ground clock runs slow, the frequency is N/(N+19) MHz.
|
| Where are your missing cycles, Henry?
| Notice that the ground clock observe the blue shifted
| frequency (N+19)/N MHz from the satellite clock.

So where ARE your tick fairies, Henri? :-)

BTW, Henri.
How did your dream go?
How does the scenario above - which is predicted by GR
and is experimentally verified - prove GR to be wrong? :-)

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...

Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of
the Local Position Invariance principle?


Because the SV clocks are not invariant with position
and fixed length paths can't blue shift to explain the
need for launch presets.

Please explain the statement:
"SV clocks are not invariant with position".

You may read about the launch presets in either
Ashby or Will's papers. You can find them at
living reviews or Will's web page.

Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is
dependent on position?

That is what Newton's second law predicts for the
proton and electron mass. That is what the launch
preset includes.

In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so.

The launch preset for gravitational *frequency* shift
would be unnecessary if that were not true.


And please explain the statement:
"fixed length paths can't blue shift"

A catcher cannot catch 31 balls per minute if the
pitcher is only throwing 30 balls per minute.
Causality violation.
Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift
in the Pound-Rebka experiment?
Correct.
The Pound-Snider paper urged caution and defered
the interpretation to more accurate clocks.
The GPS system IS the more accurate clocks
and the launch presets show the correct interpretation
of PR and GP-B.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Or what does it mean?


Since we can't fly fountains or free-fall SVs:

This very accurate space clock will be compared
continuously to the SUMO oscillator, and these two clocks
(being fundamentally different) [no mass] will provide a test of "local
position invariance." Comparisons between the space and
earth clocks will yield a related, but important measurement
of the gravitational[*] frequency[*] shift. [not redshift]
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm

Exactly.
Two different type of clocks _at the same location_
can test the LPI, which obviously say that the two clocks
should stay in sync at any location.

But what did you mean by this comment?
Sue wrote:
| So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something
| really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated
| by GPS, will be confirmed.

The expected result is obviously that the two clocks
will stay in sync and thus confirm the LPI.
So why did you say that the SUMO clock has to do
something really unexpected to confirm the LPI?
The SUMO does not have proton and electron masses
to couple to the earth's gravity. (hyperfine transition)
There is no reason it should change with altitude as atomic
clocks do.
In the SCSO measurements, earth tides were easily
observable at the 10-14 frequency variation level, in
agreement with model calculations. The sensitivity of the
cavity frequency to variations in acceleration can be reduced
significantly by supporting the cavity from its center, therefore
compensating any change in the length of the top half with an
opposite change in the bottom half.
http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm

A real experiment should close the circle on the LPI
issue.

Sue...

Paul