On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Aristotle

wrote
on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:30:41 GMT
:

What nonsense.
Each clock is empirically corrected sveral times each day.

Denying easily verifiable facts make you look SO intelligent, Henri. :-)

Why aren't they verified then Paul?

Are the SRians too afraid of what might be revealed?


Paul
Thay have been verified. You are either to dense or to stupid to
realize this.

Henri has not verified them. Therefore, they have not been verified.

Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is exactly what GR predicts has
never been properly determined.

Why,? NOBODY BUT A RELATIVIST GIVES A STUFF!

The clocks are software synched soon after being sent up.




(Spot the Flaw.)

I spotted the flaws in relativity years ago.


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 wrote:
Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is exactly what GR predicts has
never been properly determined.

It hasn't? Which number do you think has never been
determined:
- the GR predicted frequency offset, or
- the actual offset made in the clocks?

There are two numbers. Your statement implies one of these numbers
is unknown, since if both were known, we'd know if they're the
same or different.

So which one is unknown?

- Randy

On 30 Jul 2005 19:08:02 -0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is exactly what GR predicts has
never been properly determined.

It hasn't? Which number do you think has never been
determined:
- the GR predicted frequency offset, or
- the actual offset made in the clocks?

There are two numbers. Your statement implies one of these numbers
is unknown, since if both were known, we'd know if they're the
same or different.

So which one is unknown?

GR predicted a frequency offset.
It is the actual offset made in the clocks before launch. (to satisfy the
GRians)
When the clock is in orbit, its rate is fine-tuned to that of the ground clock.
After that, only small daily corrections are required.

The prelaunch offset does not have to be accurate.....only around the right
order. That makes the finetuning a lot easier.




- Randy


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 wrote:
On 30 Jul 2005 19:08:02 -0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is exactly what GR predicts has
never been properly determined.

It hasn't? Which number do you think has never been
determined:
- the GR predicted frequency offset, or
- the actual offset made in the clocks?

There are two numbers. Your statement implies one of these numbers
is unknown, since if both were known, we'd know if they're the
same or different.

So which one is unknown?

GR predicted a frequency offset.
It is the actual offset made in the clocks before launch. (to satisfy the
GRians)

Ah, so this statement:
"Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is
exactly what GR predicts has never been properly determined."
which you made was not only wrong, but you knew it was wrong
when you made it.

When the clock is in orbit, its rate is fine-tuned to that of
the ground clock.

No, it's not, and you know it. No change is made to the
rate in orbit, and you know it, not a "fine-tune" or any other
kind of rate change.

Quiz: If I advance a counter by 10 counts, have I changed the
rate at which it counts?

If I subtract 10 counts from a counter, have I changed the
rate at which it counts?

- Randy

On 31 Jul 2005 17:04:27 -0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 30 Jul 2005 19:08:02 -0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is exactly what GR predicts has
never been properly determined.

It hasn't? Which number do you think has never been
determined:
- the GR predicted frequency offset, or
- the actual offset made in the clocks?

There are two numbers. Your statement implies one of these numbers
is unknown, since if both were known, we'd know if they're the
same or different.

So which one is unknown?

GR predicted a frequency offset.
It is the actual offset made in the clocks before launch. (to satisfy the
GRians)

Ah, so this statement:
"Whether or not the required pre-launch offset is
exactly what GR predicts has never been properly determined."
which you made was not only wrong, but you knew it was wrong
when you made it.

It is not wrong.
Can't you read properly?
I said the REQUIRED OFFSET.


When the clock is in orbit, its rate is fine-tuned to that of
the ground clock.

No, it's not, and you know it. No change is made to the
rate in orbit, and you know it, not a "fine-tune" or any other
kind of rate change.

Quiz: If I advance a counter by 10 counts, have I changed the
rate at which it counts?

If I subtract 10 counts from a counter, have I changed the
rate at which it counts?

Are you aware that the cesium transition frequency in an atomic clock is used
to synch a much simpler quartz clock at a lower frequency?
Can you not imagine how easy it is to drop or add a few ticks in the process?



- Randy


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.