On 6 Aug, 09:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:27:17 -0700, Jerry wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot
be altered in any way after launch.
I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

I did some Google research on this subject and found the
following conversation that you had with Myxococcus xanthus
back in September of 2004. The quote is from two posts by
Myxococcus with corrections as noted in a third post.

snip details

Crank, you can argue about that with George. It should keep you both out of
harm's way for the next year or so.

There are ways to tweak a PLL ratio but that isn't
necessary, the conversation was a bit of a red
herring. The GR prediction is accurate so a fixed
ratio would be adequate, however there are random
sources of error as well. The atomic clocks are
stable to around a few nanoseconds per day but that
equates to a fraction of a foot per day. The GPS
system has to be stable long term so cumulative
errors need to be steered out.

The real point is that the corrections are of the
order of nanoseconds while the GR correction is
around 40 microseconds so it gives confirmation of
GR to about the 0.01% level without even needing
any detailed analysis.

That really is the point Henry, GR tells us how to
build equipment that works, ballistic theory gives
quite different answers and if it had been used,
the system would not have worked. Noone is going
to adopt a theory that doesn't work.

George

On 6 Aug, 10:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:14:51 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot be altered in
any
way after launch.

He is correct, the ratio is fixed during manufacture.
Only the initial designs had an extra switch to disable
the correction.

I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

You are a liar Henry, as you can see above, in the
part you snipped to falsify the record, I said
"What you do is put a frequency changing circuit
after the clock.". That is an integral part of the
design and cannot be altered after manufacture never
mind after launch.

George, here is the text:
""""

That has to be your most meaningful reply for some time.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

end of quote

It is widely known, and Paul knows it too so I don't
believe he ever said otherwise. You on the other hand
have a history of lying.

I would like to see a comparison between doppler shift of an RF signal
from the
ISS with the shift of laser light emitted from the same point.
Unfortunately
the shift is probably too small to allow such an experiment.

You ar not suggesting a test that tells us anything new
compared to the Pound-Rebka and Ives-Stilwell.

Pound Rebka tells us that photons do indeed accelerate according to Newton and
BaTh.

Nope, Pound-rRebka tells us the frequency changes while
ballistic theory predicts it should not.

The second one is bull****.

Rofl, it is is simple measurement of the Doppler shift
and yet agian since it confirms SR, you have to bury
your head in the sand. Dream on Henry.

I'm sugesting that there would be for the photons themselves but not for
the RF
signal made by the interrelationship of those photons.

No, you are suggesting that tick fairies add or subtract
cycles on the way down.

The question is, how much are RF or higher frequency generated signals blue
shifted IN FREQUENCY as they fall to Earth. I say they are not at all.

Pound-Rebka found they were.

DOES NASA ADJUST ALL ITS RECEIVERS UP A LITTLE, GEORGE?

Not NASA Henry, the DSN. They measure the telemetry carrier
to navigate spacecraft and the frequencies are shifted as
relativity predicts.

Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

The only test done in the 1970's was very inaccurate.

Funny how, when you thought it affected the frequency,
you consider it evidence for ballisti theory but when
you discover it contradicts ballistic theory, suddenly
it becomes "very inaccurate". Your bias is showing Henry.

I didn't say it affected clock frequency George. Quite the contrary.
I said it affected the wavelength BETWEEN CLOCK TICKS.

Telling lies again Henry? Here is the exchange:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
..
It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift
prediction.
Work it out yourself if you don't believe me.

You have made another mistake there, although there
is a blueshift in reality, meaning that the received
frequency is higher, ballistic theory only predicts
a change in _speed_ as you say. That doesn't affect
the received _frequency_, it has the effect of
changing the wavelength.

That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength
will
cause an error.

You said it affected the speed and implied it matched
the frequency change predicted by GR, I had to correct
you to point out it was the wavelength that was affected,
not the frequency.

The question is, "How long is a photon?"

Well you keep telling me your theory is particle based so
the answer to that would have to be zero.

The wavelength of photons should NOT be affected because both ends are
accelerated by the same amount and my K factor might not apply. ..but the
frequencies of hteir intrinsic oscillations should increase with hteir change
in velocity.

In which case a spectral line emitted by a source moving
towards us should be red-shifted because its speed falls
from c+v to c due to "speed equalisation" - that doesn't
happen.

The wavelengths of RF signals (absolute distance between wavecrests) are of
course increased as they accelerate during the fall. So they should arrive at
the emission frequency.

Well that a bizarre way of looking at it but your conclusion
is right, ballistic theory predicts no change in received
frequency.

Since receivers measure the TIME between ticks, a
change in wavelength has no effect.

That is right. I neve4r said otherwise...but it doesn't alter the fact that the
'GR correction' is exactly the same as the proportional change in speed as the
photons fall to ground.
Is that not a strange coincidence?

I think you are confusing the two aspects again, the
GR correction is a change in frequency of the clocks
which is cumulative. What we are talking about above
is the gravitational blueshift of the carrier signal
sent from the satellite to the ground. That blueshift
is an increase in frequency but ballistic theory
predicts there should be none.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Wavelength comes into it.

Wrong again, they only measure time of arrival.

Her are some quotes:

"Finally, the technology of artificial satellites made possible navigation and
position determination using line of sight signals involving the measurement of
Doppler shift or phase difference".

Check the context, the Doppler shift technique is much
older than GPS and not nearly as accurate.

"With post-processed carrier phase measurements, a precision of a few
centimeters can be achieved. "

Yes, carrier phase. It means measuring the mean time of
arrival of the carrier waveform to a fraction of a cycle.

"The phase by which the replica code must be shifted in the receiver to
maintain maximum correlation with the satellite code, multiplied by the speed
of light, is approximately equal to the satellite range."

Right. Note it is the speed of light, not c+v where v is the
speed of the craft, and that is only a cursory description
because the Sagnac effect also has to be included since the
grond receiver moves during the downlink time due to the
rotation of the earth. Using ballistic theory there would
give quite large errors.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

(I should have noted I was assuming you meant the gravitational
blueshift here, not the clock offset factor.)

No, the GR correction is a frequency correction
while ballistic theory predicts NO frequency change.

It shows up as a phase difference.

No, the phase measurement is a way of improving the
resolution of the time of flight.

Is that not a strange coincidence George?

No, it is another of your lies, nothing coincides.

George, you are quite free to do the calculation yourself. It requires nothing
more than schoolboy maths...Pencho did it.

I have never spoken to him and what he writes is such
utter garbage I killfiled him the first time I saw one
of his posts. It doesn't surprise me that he would get
it wrong. At least you have some basic knowledge and
you have given your own derivation above showing the
same as my method, ballistic theory doesn't predict
an alteration of the frequency on the downlink.

Nobody making or using GPS bothers with the 'GR correction'.

The corrections are built into the satellites to keep
the cost of the handsets down

Then they are finely adjusted when in orbit.

Yes, even atomic clocks have small random drifts and Earth
features also have an effect. The clock rates are affected
by changes caused by gravitational effects from mountain
ranges, ocean trenches, density variations and the like, the
Earth isn't uniform.

Please explain that to Andersen.
I tried to convince him for years.

I can't remember Paul ever saying anything to the contrary
but I know you tell lies and fake quotes, you try to do it
to me regularly.

It approximates thfree fall error...

There is no "free fall" error Henry, it is governed
by the potential, but you are right in that the theory
correctly tells us what the error will be and that is
precisely why GR is correct. Ballistic theory predicts
NO frequency change so is wrong yet again.

You are confused as usual.

I note you resort to a mere insult again, but since you
agreed my point earlier, I don't mind.

It's not any sort of evidence Henry, just an apocryphal
story about the vagaries of managment. The engineers
built in the GR corrections because everyone knows GR
works, but the managers were sceptical so the first
satellites had a switch that could remove the correction.
The production satellites don't have the ability to
switch it off.

They originallybuilt it in because some idiot relativist told them they
should.
It just happens to be of about the right order.

It just happens to be _exactly_ correct which is what
defines a valid theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong.

It is exactly the BaTh predicted fractional velocity increase.

You are again confusing the velocity on the downlink
with the frequency. Ballistic theory does not predict
_any_ change of frequency for the orbiting clock.

Nope, there is no diagram showing the situation in
the frame of the source. You are hallucinating.

Who wants to know what happens in the source frame?

You have talked of nothing else. Here you go again:

Are you still denying the obvious fact that in the inertial frame, the
rays are
shown to move at c+/-v wrt the source?

"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

OK, ...and the rays are shown to move at +/-v wrt that frame,

No, the rays are not shown isn that frame AT ALL, and
if a diagram were drawn in that frame it would show them
moving at c, not c+/-v.

AS VIEWED IN THE
LAB FRAME.
Has it gotten through yet George?

Yes, you STILL don't know what a frame is after having
it explained to you over and over and over again.

My program:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
shows how stupid the second postulate actually is.

It only shows LET.

Precisely. That's what the second postulate IS George.

Not even close Henry, go and read the paper.

My demo shows what source independency looks like in real life.
It is stupid, I agree.

Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

but for the purpose of your argument, you
should simply use 'the source' rather than try to look clever by
introducing an
irrelevancy.

George, I HAVE always associated speeds with reference frames....which
is
more
than I can say for your relativist colleagues. In sagnac, the rays move
at
c+/-v wrt the source, as viewed in the LAB FRAME.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BEFORE THEY SINK IN GEORGE?

Until you change them to get them right. "wrt the source"
is synonymous with "in the source frame", not "in the lab
frame".

Oh Rubbish.

OK, maybe you haven't learnt anything after all.

Two cars are moving along a road, one at 50 km/hr and the other at 60.

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE ROAD FRAME?

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE frame of either
car?

Don't try to change the question at this stage Henry,
the speeds of the cars "wrt the road" are 50km/hr and
60km/hr. The speed of the faster car "wrt the slower
car" is 9.99999999999998 km/hr.

Who performs the measurement George?

Indeed, you STILL don't know what a frame is. I clearly
said "wrt the slower car" which means the measurements
are made by instruments which are at rest WITH RESPECT
TO the slower car.

Schoolboy algebra is all one needs to see that the standard sagnac
diagram
has the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Obviously you are incapable of schoolboy algebra then
because if you do that math the answer is c, not c+/-v.

That's according to your ridiculous unproven postulate.

It is directly proven by Sagnac's experiment.

SR is directly refuted by Sagnac.

Bleat all you like, repeating your matras doesn't change
the maths.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source ..

There is NO diagram drawn "wrt the source" on the page
Henry, sit down for a few minutes and try to understand
what you are being shown.

You are becoming quite incoherent.

You are the one making claims about a diagram that
doesn't exist Henry, there is NO graphic showing the
situation "wrt the source". You need to understand
that the source in this case is those grey dots.

You are becoming hilarious.

Do you really believe that it is incorrect for a pedestrian to say "As I see
it, the separation between the two cars is increasing by 10 kms/hr".

No, and that would also be the correct number, but it
would be incorrect for him to say that the speed of the
faster car is 10 km/hr with respect to the slower car
unless he is assuming the Galilean Transforms which
would be invalid in this context since you asked about
the "standard SR explanation".

I'm not wasting any more time on this.

Good, if you haven't learnt what a frame is or what "wrt"
means by now, there is no point repeating it for you yet
again.

I know perfectly well what a frame is George.

Then start using the term correctly and we can stop
wasting time endlessly correcting your posts. The
topic was astronomical tests of ballistic theory and
having shown that it fails on both pulsars and contact
binaries, that leaves Cepheids to wrap up. How about
getting back to the topic?

George

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:48:48 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 6 Aug, 09:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:27:17 -0700, Jerry wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot
be altered in any way after launch.
I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

I did some Google research on this subject and found the
following conversation that you had with Myxococcus xanthus
back in September of 2004. The quote is from two posts by
Myxococcus with corrections as noted in a third post.

snip details

Crank, you can argue about that with George. It should keep you both out of
harm's way for the next year or so.

There are ways to tweak a PLL ratio but that isn't
necessary, the conversation was a bit of a red
herring. The GR prediction is accurate so a fixed
ratio would be adequate, however there are random
sources of error as well. The atomic clocks are
stable to around a few nanoseconds per day but that
equates to a fraction of a foot per day. The GPS
system has to be stable long term so cumulative
errors need to be steered out.

The real point is that the corrections are of the
order of nanoseconds while the GR correction is
around 40 microseconds so it gives confirmation of
GR to about the 0.01% level without even needing
any detailed analysis.

That really is the point Henry, GR tells us how to
build equipment that works, ballistic theory gives
quite different answers and if it had been used,
the system would not have worked. Noone is going
to adopt a theory that doesn't work.

George, the main criterion is that the orbiting clocks are all in synch with
each other...and that is achieved by regular monitoring and including any
discrepancies in each clock's signal.. How they stand wrt the ground clock
doesn't matter. Any differences cancel out.


George



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:47:06 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 6 Aug, 10:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:14:51 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

end of quote

It is widely known, and Paul knows it too so I don't
believe he ever said otherwise. You on the other hand
have a history of lying.

Careful George, that's very defamatory.

I would like to see a comparison between doppler shift of an RF signal
from the
ISS with the shift of laser light emitted from the same point.
Unfortunately
the shift is probably too small to allow such an experiment.

You ar not suggesting a test that tells us anything new
compared to the Pound-Rebka and Ives-Stilwell.

Pound Rebka tells us that photons do indeed accelerate according to Newton and
BaTh.

Nope, Pound-rRebka tells us the frequency changes while
ballistic theory predicts it should not.

No, NO, No! According to my 'serated bullet' model, photon frequency SHOULD
increase. It is very simple.

The second one is bull****.

Rofl, it is is simple measurement of the Doppler shift
and yet agian since it confirms SR, you have to bury
your head in the sand. Dream on Henry.

It was just an aether experiment.


The question is, how much are RF or higher frequency generated signals blue
shifted IN FREQUENCY as they fall to Earth. I say they are not at all.

Pound-Rebka found they were.

DOES NASA ADJUST ALL ITS RECEIVERS UP A LITTLE, GEORGE?

Not NASA Henry, the DSN. They measure the telemetry carrier
to navigate spacecraft and the frequencies are shifted as
relativity predicts.

You mean there is the normal Vdoppler shift. ...which of course at these speeds
is effectively the same for all theories.


You said it affected the speed and implied it matched
the frequency change predicted by GR, I had to correct
you to point out it was the wavelength that was affected,
not the frequency.

The question is, "How long is a photon?"

Well you keep telling me your theory is particle based so
the answer to that would have to be zero.

Nothing having zero length would be capable of possessing 'properties'.

The wavelength of photons should NOT be affected because both ends are
accelerated by the same amount and my K factor might not apply. ..but the
frequencies of hteir intrinsic oscillations should increase with hteir change
in velocity.

In which case a spectral line emitted by a source moving
towards us should be red-shifted because its speed falls
from c+v to c due to "speed equalisation" - that doesn't
happen.

That's a very silly thing to say George.

The wavelengths of RF signals (absolute distance between wavecrests) are of
course increased as they accelerate during the fall. So they should arrive at
the emission frequency.

Well that a bizarre way of looking at it but your conclusion
is right, ballistic theory predicts no change in received
frequency.

Unless of course, the signals change speed on entering the Earth's atmosphere.

Since receivers measure the TIME between ticks, a
change in wavelength has no effect.

That is right. I neve4r said otherwise...but it doesn't alter the fact that the
'GR correction' is exactly the same as the proportional change in speed as the
photons fall to ground.
Is that not a strange coincidence?

I think you are confusing the two aspects again, the
GR correction is a change in frequency of the clocks
which is cumulative. What we are talking about above
is the gravitational blueshift of the carrier signal
sent from the satellite to the ground. That blueshift
is an increase in frequency but ballistic theory
predicts there should be none.

I'm not going to argue about that. All I want to point out is that the two
factors are identical.
I think that is MORE THAN COINCIDENCE. There has to be a link.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Wavelength comes into it.

Wrong again, they only measure time of arrival.

Her are some quotes:

"Finally, the technology of artificial satellites made possible navigation and
position determination using line of sight signals involving the measurement of
Doppler shift or phase difference".

Check the context, the Doppler shift technique is much
older than GPS and not nearly as accurate.

"With post-processed carrier phase measurements, a precision of a few
centimeters can be achieved. "

Yes, carrier phase. It means measuring the mean time of
arrival of the carrier waveform to a fraction of a cycle.

"The phase by which the replica code must be shifted in the receiver to
maintain maximum correlation with the satellite code, multiplied by the speed
of light, is approximately equal to the satellite range."

Right. Note it is the speed of light, not c+v where v is the
speed of the craft, and that is only a cursory description
because the Sagnac effect also has to be included since the
grond receiver moves during the downlink time due to the
rotation of the earth. Using ballistic theory there would
give quite large errors.

No. Triangulation relies of an accurate knowledge of the clocks' orbits and
their mutual synchronisation with each other. Naturally, Earth movement has to
be corrected out.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

(I should have noted I was assuming you meant the gravitational
blueshift here, not the clock offset factor.)

That's another laugh. The GR correction includes the fictitious 'velocity
component' which is NOT a physical change at all....yet it is assumed to be one
in order to make the GR correction supposedly match the observed 'free fall
error.


Is that not a strange coincidence George?

No, it is another of your lies, nothing coincides.

George, you are quite free to do the calculation yourself. It requires nothing
more than schoolboy maths...Pencho did it.

I have never spoken to him and what he writes is such
utter garbage I killfiled him the first time I saw one
of his posts. It doesn't surprise me that he would get
it wrong. At least you have some basic knowledge and
you have given your own derivation above showing the
same as my method, ballistic theory doesn't predict
an alteration of the frequency on the downlink.

Do the calculation yourself George.
Any real physicist will find it quite easy.



It just happens to be _exactly_ correct which is what
defines a valid theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong.

It is exactly the BaTh predicted fractional velocity increase.

You are again confusing the velocity on the downlink
with the frequency. Ballistic theory does not predict
_any_ change of frequency for the orbiting clock.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm stating facts.



"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

OK, ...and the rays are shown to move at +/-v wrt that frame,

No, the rays are not shown isn that frame AT ALL, and
if a diagram were drawn in that frame it would show them
moving at c, not c+/-v.

AS VIEWED IN THE
LAB FRAME.
Has it gotten through yet George?

Yes, you STILL don't know what a frame is after having
it explained to you over and over and over again.

Of course I know what a bloody frame is.
What you cnnot seem to understand is that objects can move wrt a frame...and
their velocities relative to each other can be equated relative to that frame.


Not even close Henry, go and read the paper.

My demo shows what source independency looks like in real life.
It is stupid, I agree.

Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.



Don't try to change the question at this stage Henry,
the speeds of the cars "wrt the road" are 50km/hr and
60km/hr. The speed of the faster car "wrt the slower
car" is 9.99999999999998 km/hr.

Who performs the measurement George?

Indeed, you STILL don't know what a frame is. I clearly
said "wrt the slower car" which means the measurements
are made by instruments which are at rest WITH RESPECT
TO the slower car.

Those measurements are made wrt the frame of the slower car.

Are you trying to make out that the relative movement of the cars cannot be
assessed by the third ground observer?


You are the one making claims about a diagram that
doesn't exist Henry, there is NO graphic showing the
situation "wrt the source". You need to understand
that the source in this case is those grey dots.

You are becoming hilarious.

Do you really believe that it is incorrect for a pedestrian to say "As I see
it, the separation between the two cars is increasing by 10 kms/hr".

No, and that would also be the correct number,


Ha! George has finally seen the light. Now will you agree that the lab observer
sees the rays of the sagnac ring to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source?


but it
would be incorrect for him to say that the speed of the
faster car is 10 km/hr with respect to the slower car
unless he is assuming the Galilean Transforms which
would be invalid in this context since you asked about
the "standard SR explanation".

Yes we know that. That's where you got the 9.9999999999998...which of course is
bull**** anyway.



George



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On 6 Aug, 22:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:48:48 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

... The atomic clocks are
stable to around a few nanoseconds per day but that
equates to a fraction of a foot per day. The GPS
system has to be stable long term so cumulative
errors need to be steered out.

The real point is that the corrections are of the
order of nanoseconds while the GR correction is
around 40 microseconds so it gives confirmation of
GR to about the 0.01% level without even needing
any detailed analysis.

That really is the point Henry, GR tells us how to
build equipment that works, ballistic theory gives
quite different answers and if it had been used,
the system would not have worked. Noone is going
to adopt a theory that doesn't work.

George, the main criterion is that the orbiting clocks are all in synch with
each other...and that is achieved by regular monitoring and including any
discrepancies in each clock's signal..

... at the level of less than 5ns per day compared to
a GR correction of around 40us as I said.

How they stand wrt the ground clock
doesn't matter. Any differences cancel out.

No they don't, ballistic theory would produce
significant errors in locations. Consider two
satellites, one rising over the horizon to the
north and the other about to set in the south.
Both have a north-to-south velocity component
so the user's location would be displaced south
if light travelled ballistically.

However, we are still drifting off-topic for
sci.astro, let's get back to the Cepheids and
leave GPS for some other time.

George

On 6 Aug, 23:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:47:06 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 6 Aug, 10:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:14:51 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

end of quote

It is widely known, and Paul knows it too so I don't
believe he ever said otherwise. You on the other hand
have a history of lying.

Careful George, that's very defamatory.

It is also well documented in several posts over the
last few weeks.

I would like to see a comparison between doppler shift of an RF signal
from the
ISS with the shift of laser light emitted from the same point.
Unfortunately
the shift is probably too small to allow such an experiment.

You ar not suggesting a test that tells us anything new
compared to the Pound-Rebka and Ives-Stilwell.

Pound Rebka tells us that photons do indeed accelerate according to Newton and
BaTh.

Nope, Pound-rRebka tells us the frequency changes while
ballistic theory predicts it should not.

No, NO, No! According to my 'serated bullet' model,

Sorry Henry, your silly analogies are worthless, restrict
your self to ballistic theory which consists of just the
two equations, v=c+u where v is the velocity of the light
and u is the velocity of the source, and dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

photon frequency SHOULD
increase. It is very simple.

Demonstrate the maths that leads to that conclusion.

The second one is bull****.

Rofl, it is is simple measurement of the Doppler shift
and yet agian since it confirms SR, you have to bury
your head in the sand. Dream on Henry.

It was just an aether experiment.

ROFL, it was just an experiment and it showed that the
Doppler shift has a second order component not predicted
by ballistic theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong yet
again.

The question is, how much are RF or higher frequency generated signals blue
shifted IN FREQUENCY as they fall to Earth. I say they are not at all.

Pound-Rebka found they were.

DOES NASA ADJUST ALL ITS RECEIVERS UP A LITTLE, GEORGE?

Not NASA Henry, the DSN. They measure the telemetry carrier
to navigate spacecraft and the frequencies are shifted as
relativity predicts.

You mean there is the normal Vdoppler shift.

Yes.

...which of course at these speeds
is effectively the same for all theories.

No, there is a second order component at these
speeds which is significant.

You said it affected the speed and implied it matched
the frequency change predicted by GR, I had to correct
you to point out it was the wavelength that was affected,
not the frequency.

The question is, "How long is a photon?"

Well you keep telling me your theory is particle based so
the answer to that would have to be zero.

Nothing having zero length would be capable of possessing 'properties'.

Mere philosophical musings Henry, but if that is your
view then your theory isn't a particle theory, it is
one of extended objects, or "classical waves" as you
call them.

The wavelength of photons should NOT be affected because both ends are
accelerated by the same amount and my K factor might not apply. ..but the
frequencies of hteir intrinsic oscillations should increase with hteir change
in velocity.

In which case a spectral line emitted by a source moving
towards us should be red-shifted because its speed falls
from c+v to c due to "speed equalisation" - that doesn't
happen.

That's a very silly thing to say George.

Yes, "reductio ad absurdum" as it is called.

The wavelengths of RF signals (absolute distance between wavecrests) are of
course increased as they accelerate during the fall. So they should arrive at
the emission frequency.

Well that a bizarre way of looking at it but your conclusion
is right, ballistic theory predicts no change in received
frequency.

Unless of course, the signals change speed on entering the Earth's atmosphere.

Speed yes, frequency no.

Since receivers measure the TIME between ticks, a
change in wavelength has no effect.

That is right. I neve4r said otherwise...but it doesn't alter the fact that the
'GR correction' is exactly the same as the proportional change in speed as the
photons fall to ground.
Is that not a strange coincidence?

I think you are confusing the two aspects again, the
GR correction is a change in frequency of the clocks
which is cumulative. What we are talking about above
is the gravitational blueshift of the carrier signal
sent from the satellite to the ground. That blueshift
is an increase in frequency but ballistic theory
predicts there should be none.

I'm not going to argue about that. All I want to point out is that the two
factors are identical.

They aren't identical, one is zero, the other isn't.

I think that is MORE THAN COINCIDENCE. There has to be a link.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Wavelength comes into it.

Wrong again, they only measure time of arrival.

Her are some quotes:

"Finally, the technology of artificial satellites made possible navigation and
position determination using line of sight signals involving the measurement of
Doppler shift or phase difference".

Check the context, the Doppler shift technique is much
older than GPS and not nearly as accurate.

"With post-processed carrier phase measurements, a precision of a few
centimeters can be achieved. "

Yes, carrier phase. It means measuring the mean time of
arrival of the carrier waveform to a fraction of a cycle.

"The phase by which the replica code must be shifted in the receiver to
maintain maximum correlation with the satellite code, multiplied by the speed
of light, is approximately equal to the satellite range."

Right. Note it is the speed of light, not c+v where v is the
speed of the craft, and that is only a cursory description
because the Sagnac effect also has to be included since the
grond receiver moves during the downlink time due to the
rotation of the earth. Using ballistic theory there would
give quite large errors.

No. Triangulation relies of an accurate knowledge of the clocks' orbits and
their mutual synchronisation with each other.

GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.

Naturally, Earth movement has to
be corrected out.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

(I should have noted I was assuming you meant the gravitational
blueshift here, not the clock offset factor.)

That's another laugh. The GR correction includes the fictitious 'velocity
component'

Since the correction exactly compenates the clocks, it is not
ficticious. That factor is around 7us per day from memory so
again the prediction is accurate to one part in a thousand.
Ballistic theroy say it should be zero so gets it wrong again.

which is NOT a physical change at all....

It is the same factor tested and confirmed by Ives and Stilwell.

yet it is assumed

Not "assumed" henry, it is an unavoidable consequence
of the maths of GR.

to be one
in order to make the GR correction supposedly match the observed 'free fall
error.

There is no "free fall" error Henry, it is a gravitational
potential effect.

Not bad, four errors in one sentence.

Is that not a strange coincidence George?

No, it is another of your lies, nothing coincides.

George, you are quite free to do the calculation yourself. It requires nothing
more than schoolboy maths...Pencho did it.

I have never spoken to him and what he writes is such
utter garbage I killfiled him the first time I saw one
of his posts. It doesn't surprise me that he would get
it wrong. At least you have some basic knowledge and
you have given your own derivation above showing the
same as my method, ballistic theory doesn't predict
an alteration of the frequency on the downlink.

Do the calculation yourself George.

Trivial, the answer from ballistic theory is zero.

Any real physicist will find it quite easy.

Yep, mental arithmetic.

It just happens to be _exactly_ correct which is what
defines a valid theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong.

It is exactly the BaTh predicted fractional velocity increase.

You are again confusing the velocity on the downlink
with the frequency. Ballistic theory does not predict
_any_ change of frequency for the orbiting clock.

I'm not confusing anything.

Yes you are, you are talking about two entirely
different things.

I'm stating facts.

Yes, two unrelated facts, both of which falsify
ballistic theory.

"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

OK, ...and the rays are shown to move at +/-v wrt that frame,

No, the rays are not shown isn that frame AT ALL, and
if a diagram were drawn in that frame it would show them
moving at c, not c+/-v.

AS VIEWED IN THE
LAB FRAME.
Has it gotten through yet George?

Yes, you STILL don't know what a frame is after having
it explained to you over and over and over again.

Of course I know what a bloody frame is.

No, you keep making statements which are contradictory
when using the technical definitions. They are OK for a
layman in general conversation where the differences
between the theories are insignficant but if you want
to talk about the subject, then you need to start using
the term correctly.

What you cnnot seem to understand is that objects can move wrt a frame...and
their velocities relative to each other can be equated relative to that frame.

Of course the can, but you then call that the difference
between the velocities in that frame, it is not the same
as the velocity in any other frame.

Not even close Henry, go and read the paper.

My demo shows what source independency looks like in real life.
It is stupid, I agree.

Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.

I agree no such thing, Mikko's applet illustrates the
second postulate, not yours. What I do agree is that
trying to represent it as an aether-based theory is
stupid.

Don't try to change the question at this stage Henry,
the speeds of the cars "wrt the road" are 50km/hr and
60km/hr. The speed of the faster car "wrt the slower
car" is 9.99999999999998 km/hr.

Who performs the measurement George?

Indeed, you STILL don't know what a frame is. I clearly
said "wrt the slower car" which means the measurements
are made by instruments which are at rest WITH RESPECT
TO the slower car.

Those measurements are made wrt the frame of the slower car.

To be pedantic, we say the measurements are "in the
frame of the slower car" because the measurements are
made wrt the slower car, that is we use the slower car
to define the origin of the coordinate system and the
numbers are expressed in that system.

Are you trying to make out that the relative movement of the cars cannot be
assessed by the third ground observer?

No, it is perfectly valid to do that but it is the
difference of the velocities in the road frame, not
the velocity in the slower-car frame. To convert
from road-frame numbers to slower-car-frame numbers,
you use the Lorentz Transforms.

You are the one making claims about a diagram that
doesn't exist Henry, there is NO graphic showing the
situation "wrt the source". You need to understand
that the source in this case is those grey dots.

You are becoming hilarious.

Do you really believe that it is incorrect for a pedestrian to say "As I see
it, the separation between the two cars is increasing by 10 kms/hr".

No, and that would also be the correct number,

Ha! George has finally seen the light. Now will you agree that the lab observer
sees the rays of the sagnac ring to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source?

No, he sees the difference of the lab-frame velocities
to be c+/-v and calculates that the inertial-source-frame
velocity of the light is c using the Lorentz Transforms.

but it
would be incorrect for him to say that the speed of the
faster car is 10 km/hr with respect to the slower car
unless he is assuming the Galilean Transforms which
would be invalid in this context since you asked about
the "standard SR explanation".

Yes we know that. That's where you got the 9.9999999999998...which of course is
bull**** anyway.

It is what is measured was measured in reality back at the
end of the 19th century and which eventually led to SR. That
is why everyone uses the formula and unless you can modify
ballistic theory to say the same, your theory loses.

George

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:03:40 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 6 Aug, 22:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:48:48 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

... The atomic clocks are
stable to around a few nanoseconds per day but that
equates to a fraction of a foot per day. The GPS
system has to be stable long term so cumulative
errors need to be steered out.

The real point is that the corrections are of the
order of nanoseconds while the GR correction is
around 40 microseconds so it gives confirmation of
GR to about the 0.01% level without even needing
any detailed analysis.

That really is the point Henry, GR tells us how to
build equipment that works, ballistic theory gives
quite different answers and if it had been used,
the system would not have worked. Noone is going
to adopt a theory that doesn't work.

George, the main criterion is that the orbiting clocks are all in synch with
each other...and that is achieved by regular monitoring and including any
discrepancies in each clock's signal..

.. at the level of less than 5ns per day compared to
a GR correction of around 40us as I said.

the figures are 7 and 38.....so without the velocity contribution, the GR
correction is way out.


How they stand wrt the ground clock
doesn't matter. Any differences cancel out.

No they don't, ballistic theory would produce
significant errors in locations. Consider two
satellites, one rising over the horizon to the
north and the other about to set in the south.
Both have a north-to-south velocity component
so the user's location would be displaced south
if light travelled ballistically.

Nah. .. too small to worry about.

However, we are still drifting off-topic for
sci.astro, let's get back to the Cepheids and
leave GPS for some other time.

George



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:34:31 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 6 Aug, 23:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:47:06 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

Pound Rebka tells us that photons do indeed accelerate according to Newton and
BaTh.

Nope, Pound-rRebka tells us the frequency changes while
ballistic theory predicts it should not.

No, NO, No! According to my 'serated bullet' model,

Sorry Henry, your silly analogies are worthless, restrict
your self to ballistic theory which consists of just the
two equations, v=c+u where v is the velocity of the light
and u is the velocity of the source, and dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

George, I have a photon model that works...YOU have nothing but classical wave
theory..


photon frequency SHOULD
increase. It is very simple.

Demonstrate the maths that leads to that conclusion.

It should be obvious.

The second one is bull****.

Rofl, it is is simple measurement of the Doppler shift
and yet agian since it confirms SR, you have to bury
your head in the sand. Dream on Henry.

It was just an aether experiment.

ROFL, it was just an experiment and it showed that the
Doppler shift has a second order component not predicted
by ballistic theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong yet
again.

oh rubbish...

The question is, how much are RF or higher frequency generated signals blue
shifted IN FREQUENCY as they fall to Earth. I say they are not at all.

Pound-Rebka found they were.

DOES NASA ADJUST ALL ITS RECEIVERS UP A LITTLE, GEORGE?

Not NASA Henry, the DSN. They measure the telemetry carrier
to navigate spacecraft and the frequencies are shifted as
relativity predicts.

You mean there is the normal Vdoppler shift.

Yes.

...which of course at these speeds
is effectively the same for all theories.

No, there is a second order component at these
speeds which is significant.

Hahaaha!



Right. Note it is the speed of light, not c+v where v is the
speed of the craft, and that is only a cursory description
because the Sagnac effect also has to be included since the
grond receiver moves during the downlink time due to the
rotation of the earth. Using ballistic theory there would
give quite large errors.

No. Triangulation relies of an accurate knowledge of the clocks' orbits and
their mutual synchronisation with each other.

GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.

It uses triangulation....actually 4 signals.

Naturally, Earth movement has to
be corrected out.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

(I should have noted I was assuming you meant the gravitational
blueshift here, not the clock offset factor.)

That's another laugh. The GR correction includes the fictitious 'velocity
component'

Since the correction exactly compenates the clocks, it is not
ficticious. That factor is around 7us per day from memory so
again the prediction is accurate to one part in a thousand.
Ballistic theroy say it should be zero so gets it wrong again.




I have never spoken to him and what he writes is such
utter garbage I killfiled him the first time I saw one
of his posts. It doesn't surprise me that he would get
it wrong. At least you have some basic knowledge and
you have given your own derivation above showing the
same as my method, ballistic theory doesn't predict
an alteration of the frequency on the downlink.

Do the calculation yourself George.

Trivial, the answer from ballistic theory is zero.

In other words, you don't know how to do the calculation.

Any real physicist will find it quite easy.

Yep, mental arithmetic.

...... you don't know how to do the calculation.




"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

OK, ...and the rays are shown to move at +/-v wrt that frame,

No, the rays are not shown isn that frame AT ALL, and
if a diagram were drawn in that frame it would show them

No, you keep making statements which are contradictory
when using the technical definitions. They are OK for a
layman in general conversation where the differences
between the theories are insignficant but if you want
to talk about the subject, then you need to start using
the term correctly.

What you cnnot seem to understand is that objects can move wrt a frame...and
their velocities relative to each other can be equated relative to that frame.

Of course the can, but you then call that the difference
between the velocities in that frame, it is not the same
as the velocity in any other frame.

Accordoing to Newton, the difference of two velocities will be measured as the
same in all frames.



Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.

I agree no such thing, Mikko's applet illustrates the
second postulate, not yours. What I do agree is that
trying to represent it as an aether-based theory is
stupid.

But it IS an aether based theory. How else could 'space' alone IMMEDIATELY
UNIFY light speed from differently moving sources?Maybe the fairies?



Indeed, you STILL don't know what a frame is. I clearly
said "wrt the slower car" which means the measurements
are made by instruments which are at rest WITH RESPECT
TO the slower car.

Those measurements are made wrt the frame of the slower car.

To be pedantic, we say the measurements are "in the
frame of the slower car" because the measurements are
made wrt the slower car, that is we use the slower car
to define the origin of the coordinate system and the
numbers are expressed in that system.

George, that is not the problem.

Are you trying to make out that the relative movement of the cars cannot be
assessed by the third ground observer?

No, it is perfectly valid to do that but it is the
difference of the velocities in the road frame, not
the velocity in the slower-car frame.

I didn't say it was.

To convert
from road-frame numbers to slower-car-frame numbers,
you use the Lorentz Transforms.

They don't exist in reality.
Velocity differences are the same when measured in all frames.


Do you really believe that it is incorrect for a pedestrian to say "As I see
it, the separation between the two cars is increasing by 10 kms/hr".

No, and that would also be the correct number,

Ha! George has finally seen the light. Now will you agree that the lab observer
sees the rays of the sagnac ring to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source?

No, he sees the difference of the lab-frame velocities
to be c+/-v and calculates that the inertial-source-frame
velocity of the light is c using the Lorentz Transforms.

If he was a braindead relativist he would use Einstein's circularly derived
velocity addition formula if anything.

but it
would be incorrect for him to say that the speed of the
faster car is 10 km/hr with respect to the slower car
unless he is assuming the Galilean Transforms which
would be invalid in this context since you asked about
the "standard SR explanation".

Yes we know that. That's where you got the 9.9999999999998...which of course is
bull**** anyway.

It is what is measured was measured in reality back at the
end of the 19th century and which eventually led to SR. That
is why everyone uses the formula and unless you can modify
ballistic theory to say the same, your theory loses.

It has never been measured.
The apparent absence of an aether led to SR. It merely made the aether
redundant by replacing it with an unproven postulate.


George



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.