Existence

Hi Straggler, The one that was created in the IFR where you are and the event takes place.If it was created in a different frame and brought to the event the gravatational field would be different and thus the tick rate would be different.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So you are saying that the only way to accurately measure the duration of a local event is with a local clock.Is that right?

As I stated, this is almost right. A lack of complete understanding of the situation leads one to assume their faulty pronouncement is correct.First, "belief" is your realm in religion and has no place in a science discussion. But "understanding" more accurately informs the interpretation of the facts to arrive at the reality.Second, your distain for understanding the reality of this situation has led you to, again, make pronouncements that can only be described as foolish.Stop doing that, ICANT. Because in a cesium cascade clock the "tick rate" is not adjustable. It is the natural frequency of the cesium atom which is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.In your source, the "tick rate", which is a bad choice of words in this case, is not adjustable either. The clocks tick at the same rate (1.12 x 10¹⁵ times per second). Raising one clock a few centimeters causes them to move out of phase with each other. They are both still measuring a "second", but the difference in altitude (the difference in the gravitational field) has caused a dilation of the "second" being measured. Again, your distain for understanding has caused you to quote mine completely out of context. You saw the words,"The result is an observation time of about one second, which is limited only by the force of gravity pulling the atoms to the ground"and assumed you had your piece of evidence without any understanding of what was being said and why.The longer cascade of the NIST-F1 (the observation time of about 1 second) is not the clock tick by which they measure time.It is a mechanism that allows the operators to more quickly and more accurately tune the microwave frequency that causes the cluster of cesium atoms to fluoresce at their natural frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. This frequency, not the bobbing up and down of the cluster in the fountain and whatever effect gravity may have on this observation time, this frequency of the fluorescence at 9,192,631,770 times per second is the tick/tock of the clock.This "observation time" limited by gravity (longer in Boulder, shorter in Greenwich) has no effect on the natural cycle of the cesium atom. The gravitational effect on the physical processes which produce the natural cesium frequency is time dilation, not the observation time to tune the microwaves. Quite the contrary. It is you with your distain for understanding that does not know what they are talking about.Back to the issue. That is just the issue ICANT. No, they do not. Time (the "second") is dilated between the two frames (Boulder and Greenwich). See Relativity of Simultaneity[aside]Just for those who may desire a more complete understanding, our species has defined the "second" as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. Wherever there is a properly tuned and functioning cesium clock, regardless of gravity position or acceleration, 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium atom is, by definition, a second.[/aside]ICANT, what the experiments with the clocks show, what your own sources have shown, is that time is relative between frames of reference. Those frames deeper in a gravity well or at higher acceleration will measure a "second" differently (note: not errantly) from those frames in lesser gravity or slower acceleration.This is time dilation. This is what General Relativity has predicted and it is precisely what these clocks and experiments have shown. Edited by AZPaul3, : Added referenceEdited by AZPaul3, : additional explanation

Here is the straight dope on gps clocks and how relativity effects them, please read it as this is beginning to test my patience, ThanksWhen you see something you don't agree with let me know exactly where and on what page, I promise you this is one of the most credible sources. I guess you don't want to call the air force as I did, I provided you # to do so yourself, This is the paper they said to get you to read, once again thanksEdited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

On a slightly different note, thank god...LOLOL The light you see from stars in the sky are from the past, further away the star then the older the light we see is, I would say that is a good indication that the past once existed, in some ways, ie their light, it still does.This might be a flawed line of thought, but I felt the need to get off relativity a bit. , but please do go to here to see about the gps system and relativity, these are people who build the clocks.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

I'm posting the introduction, for those who don't want to download a 4+ MB pdf file:

quote:

---

A GPS receiver must make two corrections that are related to relativity in order to
provide time or position to a user. We discuss these corrections and focus mostly on
estimating the geometric range delay t D , the time for GPS signals to propagate from the
transmitter to the receiver in vacuum. Proper estimation of t D is essential for solving for
position or time. This is an application of the relativistic principle of the constancy of the
speed of light, which states that electromagnetic signals travel in Euclidean straight lines
with speed c relative to an inertial reference frame. We present a few cases which apply
to many common uses of GPS and illustrate them numerically.

​

We present the theory behind corrections with references given for any derivations not
done here. Through the derivations, we show that the Interface Control Document (ICDGPS-
200) specifications, as issued by the Joint Program Office of the Global Positioning
System [l], consistently cover the requirements of relativity down to within 1 ns or less.
We show that the ICD specifications include relativity corrections with enough accuracy
for most applications [2,3]. In particular, we discuss the relativistic Doppler effect, the
formula for its instantaneous magnitude, and its relationship with typical GPS receiver
operation. We also address the use of carrier-phase measurements, which is not discussed
in the ICD.

​

Relativistic effects which are not usually modelled in GPS are: (a) a small effect on
satellite clock rates due to the earth’s oblateness and (b) a small time delay due to the
slowing of electromagnetic signal propagation in the earth’s gravitational field. The earth’s
oblateness contributes a very small constant rate correction for satellite clocks, which is so
small (less than 50 ps per day) that it can be neglected. It also causes a periodic variation in
the GPS satellite clock time having twice the orbital period and a peak-to-peak amplitude
less than 200 ps. For a GPS satellite-to-user link the gravitational time delay is less than
200 ps [2]

​

Our goal is to give simple recipes, so that GPS users may understand how to implement
receiver designs consistently with the requirements of relativity. We then back
up these prescriptions with full explanations and derivations, so that those interested can
understand where the prescriptions come from and what approximations are involved. The
result is that this document provides a brief tutorial on how relativity is applied for users
of the GPS broadcast ephemerides.

---

Hopefully that came out correct - The copy/paste from the pdf was a bit flaky.Moose

So called theory eh?Actually given the controversial nature of the theory, and the fact that theory is over 90 years old, Einstein's contemporaries might not be the best people to quote. Some of Einstein's contemporaries doubts may well have been well founded. The math was difficult to follow, and the experimental validation, limited. Even Eddington's eclipse observations could have been questioned.You don't have those same reasons to doubt Einstein these days. The predictions of general relativity have been subjected to numerous test since back in the day. Eddington's experiment has been repeated numerous times. Pari Spolter??? You've got to be kidding. Her book is pure nonsense. It's absolutely hilarious that you would cite her book.Here's an excerpt from a debate between Pari Spolter and Paulo Correa regarding some physics from "Gravitational Force of the Sun". Note Spolter's opinion of Newton's work...http://www.aetherometry.com/...of_Science/spolter_debate.php

quote:

---

Also, please note that there is no acceleration in Newton's Universal Law. Students are taught in one session that

​

F = ma (Newton's second law of motion)

​

and in a later session that

​

F = (GMm/r2) (Newton's law of universal gravitation).

​

These two equations are not dimensionally consistent. Furthermore there is no explanation in the textbooks why we need two different equations for FORCE.

---

Here's a bit from here response to Correa's rebuttal

quote:

---

I regret that the Correas and David Pratt have chosen to ignore considerable evidence presented in my book to show that gravitational force is independent of mass.

---

I'm not going to quote Correa's rebuttal, but the above is completely laughable. If you don't understand why, I recommend you read the rebuttal for yourself.From a book review that includes the quote you provided.Challenging Einstein - A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic

quote:

---

Pari further remarks that Einstein's general theory of relativity does not explain:

​

(1) the rotation of the celestial bodies
(2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
(3) the orbital planes of all the planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (12?)
(4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
(5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise) as viewed from north)
(6) the distance law (Titius-Bode)
(7) the eccentricities
(8) the regression of the nodes
(9) the precision of the equinoxes
(10) the perturbations

---

Really? No theory of gravity will explain items 1-7. Newton's theory is good enough to explain 8-10 (assuming "precision" really means "precession") which means Einstein's theory does as well.Einstein's theory also does not predict the date Easter falls on each year or explain why Pluto is not a planet. So maybe we should dump it. Not.You are not alone, ICANT. But you haven't cited great company. You probably should have stuck with Flandern or some other proponent of LET.

I'm not sure... "Hyjacked?" What is that? Why does someone who is so particular about definitions not spell things correctly?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

ICANT...What do you propose for the "eternal existence of the existence?"How does it happen that something comes from nothing?If some existence caused the existence of our existence then what caused that existence? And what caused that existence.......

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

First, sorry for the delay since I was changing ISP, I was cut off from the internet for some times. From now on I should be able to respond faster.For the first point, others have already pointed out that clocks and other things in gps are adjusted according to relativity which posits that time is a dimension of spacetime. They don't use your "theory" about time. If you think your theory is the truth, you should be able to show with maths what your theory actually predicts and why relativity is wrong despite its accuracy.For the second point about lightning, here's what started the thread: You then followed this message with this: After having been proven wrong, you still have not recanted neither did you come back to this thread to dispute it's conclusions. You simply went on to ignore it.
Moreover, now instead of admiting you were wrong, you're making it sound like you were seeking informations that have then been answered, which is plainly false. You were wrong about basic physics and were then corrected by others. Did you really think that noone would check on the thread to see your dishonesty?As for the third point, here is what Cavediver said at some point: You then responded with this from message 84: Here we have cavediver using x,y and z as coordinates in space(3 dimensions). The x,y and z you use to answer are all coordinates in time (a single dimension).After a short exchange between us, I pointed out in message 98 this: Did you really think that noone was able to recheck past messages? Contrary to oral debate, internet discussions leave traces and your usual tactics don't work there even though I'm sure they're very efficient in a church. Moreover, as a self-described chistian, shouldn't you try to be at least a little bit honest? I thought it was considered a sin to lie. Unless your christiannity is also a lie?

Hi fear, Did you read the article?If so what page refers to the timing of the clock or adjustments made to account for any of the things we have been talking about?The article is about GPS receivers you go in the store and buy and their specifications.Now if you can find where they discuss the effects gravity has on the clocks in the satellites point it out as I could not find it.Do you believe everything someone tells you?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I guess you didn't read it, or lack the intelligence to understand it is more likely, any relativistic correction made to the system, whether it be at the receiver or to the clocks on the satellite prove relativity. Why else would they have to be made, gravity alone is not the only reason.I would trust the Air force, and The National Institute of Standards and Technology before any source you have provided, these are the people who build and operate the system, are they lying, by the way you asked someone else the same question. You simply do not understand,or refuse to admit your WRONG.

Yes, I do, ICANT. See, the thing is......time dilation has a different definition. Your simplistic view of cosmology and physics is hackneyed at best. Both subjects don't bode too well to laypersons who don't understand even the most basic concepts. This, coming from a high school dropout who has only a laypersons interest in either.Until you can grasp the basics, this discussion won't go very far (as we've already noticed). And until you are willing to actually learn without something blocking you from learning (you seem to have a priori and won't waiver from it), this discussion won't go very far.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

"Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface. Thus GPS satellite clock frequencies need to be adjusted by a fraction of about -5.3 x 10^-10 relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect."Found on pg. 8.Clocks tick faster for the satellites because they are further away from Earth's center of gravity than the clocks on the ground. These clocks are also adjusted by ground command from time to time to make up for these relativistic effects. This is required because the receiver is receiving time signatures from the satellites. The difference in the time signatures is used to calculate how far away the satellite is because the speed of light is constant. If the clocks in the satellites were not adjusted on a regular basis then GPS wouldn't work.

OK chew on this about the ESA's GNSS system and let me know what you think. Any relativistic correction added to any part of the system, including the receivers, prove it happens, gravity is not the only thing to account for , as you have now been shown by 2 independent, credible, operators of gps systems, shall I look for a Russian paper on their system?And thanks Taq, you posted before I could look back at it as I was finding this one. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera