Re: Light Clock Nonsense

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 12/14/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:08:22 -0500

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:cpl33t$9u7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> jahn wrote:
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:cpjsii$cvq$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> >
> >>jahn wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:cpih5j$os3$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>jahn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:cpia8e$3lr$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>jahn wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The folks that make the clock, Agilent technologies admit
> >>>>>>>their clocks are affected by gravity and say the effect is
> >>>>>>>"often called gravitational redshift" but recently
> >>>>>>>refer to it as simply "altitude effect."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They "admit"? :-)
> >>>>>>This effect is predicted by GR.
> >>>>>>Whether you name it "gravitational red shift",
> >>>>>>"altitude effect" or whatever is of no consequence.
> >>>>>>Standard clocks in the UTC system which are not on
> >>>>>>the geoid has to be corrected for this.
> >>>>>>For example the standard clock at NIST, Boulder Colorado:
> >>>>>>http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/fountain.htm
> >>>>>>is running fast by a factor ca. 1.8*10^-13 compared
> >>>>>>to clocks on the geoid (if it weren't corrected).
> >>>>>>http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0026-1394/40/2/311
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>><< The minus sign implies that clocks run faster in the
> >>>>>laboratory in Boulder than a standard clock located on the geoid. >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Isn't that OPPOSITE the GPS experience?
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>>You really have no clue, do you?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ya took out the word "implies" and added the phrase
> >>>(if it weren't corrected) to make it sound like a actual
> >>>experiment.
> >>
> >>Took "imples" out from where and added a phrase to what?
> >>These are MY words:
> >>| Standard clocks in the UTC system which are not on
> >>| the geoid has to be corrected for this.
> >>| For example the standard clock at NIST, Boulder Colorado
> >>| is running fast by a factor ca. 1.8*10^-13 compared
> >>| to clocks on the geoid (if it weren't corrected).
> >>
> >>Didn't you know this?
> >
> > When did my knowledge become your concern ?
> >
> >>In that case you can read about it here:
> >>http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1823.pdf
> >>And this IS a quote from the paper:
> >>" In order for NIST-F1 to be compared with and
> >> contribute to TAI the clock frequency must be corrected
> >> to the geoid. The clock frequency reported therefore has
> >> a fractional frequency correction of 180.54*10^-15 with
> >> an uncertainty of 1*10^-15 "
> >>
> >>TAI is "Temps Atomique International" - "International Atomic Time"
> >>which is a many atomic clocks all over the world.
> >>UTC is derived from it.
> >
> >
> > Yeah.... Tell us more!
> > << which is a many atomic clocks >>
>
> Should have been:
> .. which is a system of many atomic clocks ..
> Sorry.
>
> > Is that a quote too?
> > yank and put kaput ?
> >
> > Excuse my Schwartz.
> > OF COUSE YOU IDIOT!
>
> Since it is an unforgivable offence to tell you
> what TAI is, I find your response quite reasonable.
>
> >
> > SI incorporates relativity whether is is well founded or not.
> > NIST echos the assumptions to BIPM because
> > the they are not reflected in better and better clocks
> > like the F1 fountain.
> >
> > << 3.4 Gravitational frequency shift
> > The altitude in Boulder, CO, where NIST-F1 is located,
> > is about 1600 m. General relativistic calculations predict
> > a fractional increase in the frequency of a clock when
> > operated above the rotating geoid of 1.09 x 10^-16 m .
>
> Minor typo: 1.09 x 10^-16 m^-1.
> That's 1.09 x 10^-16 per meter of which there are 1600.
> But you knew that, of course.
> And I will not offend you by telling you that the next
> statement in that text is the one I quoted above:
> " In order for NIST-F1 to be compared with and
> contribute to TAI the clock frequency must be corrected
> to the geoid. The clock frequency reported therefore has
> a fractional frequency correction of 180.54*10^-15 with
> an uncertainty of 1*10^-15 "
>
> You have obviously long since fathomed that
> the frequency correction of the clock in Boulder
> is 180.54*10^-15.
>
> Haven't you?
> Of course you have.
> You are not stupid.
> Or are you?
>
> >
> > Page 8
> > Can you say "I told ya so in Bouldereese ? "
> >
> > <<
> > NIST-F1 is not run as a clock. A formal evaluation
> > for the BIPM is conducted by measuring the average
> > frequency of a reference hydrogen maser with NIST-F1
> > over a specified period. The maser is one of the NIST
> > clocks reported to the BIPM and therefore provides a
> > means by which the maser frequency can be related
> > to the frequency of TAI. From this information the
> > frequency of the fountain relative to TAI is determined.
> > The biases are evaluated by carrying out a number
> >
> > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1823.pdf
> >
> > Look on page 7 and see what the GR or gravitational
> > redshift correction is. If you don't see it, just make it up.
> > You should have no trouble with that.
>
> Of course we both see it.
> We can both read, can't we?
> But what is your point?
> We both agree that it is 180.54*10^-15
> which is ca. 1.8*10^-13 as I stated.
> Don't we?
>
> > TAI, Temps Atomique International, is the international atomic
> > time scale based on a continuous counting of the *SI second*.
>
> Well, it IS rather obvious that the SI definition of
> a second is used in all the clocks, isn't it?
> I will not offend you yet again by reminding you that
> the TAI is a system consisting of many clocks all over
> the world.
>
> > TAI is currently ahead of UTC by 32 seconds.
>
> Indeed.
> And you know of course why.
>
>
> >>That this correction has to be applied
> >>is of course another confirmation of GR.
> >
> >
> > IDIOT! This is the correction that opponents of SI
> > warned of. It confirms the stupidity of including
> > gravitational potential as part of our time standards.
>
> How is that? It is a fact that:
> "In order for NIST-F1 to be compared with and
> contribute to TAI the clock frequency must be corrected
> to the geoid. The clock frequency reported therefore has
> a fractional frequency correction of 180.54*10^-15 with
> an uncertainty of 1*10^-15 "
> isn't it?
>
> And it is a fact that the correction 180.54*10^-15
> is predicted by GR, isn't it?
>
> That prove the correction predicted by GR correct,
> doesn't it?

NO. Better and better clocks are going to
agree with each other, perhaps even at altidude
but the stupid "redshift correction" which is written
into TDT.

What is proven is; majority rule makes bad science.

<<For the chosen formalism (GR only or parametrized),
the opinions in the group are more or less evenly separated
with a slight advantage for GR. I believe that it is not the goal
of a conventional formalism to describe all the possible
models so that the best choice is GR. >>
http://www1.bipm.org/static/JCR//jcrcir04.html

>
> > <<Terrestrial Dynamical Time (TDT) -- or Terrestrial Time
> > (TT) for short -- was implemented in 1984 as the dynamical
> > time scale for geocetric phenomena. Barycentric Dynamical
> > Time (TDB) was implemented in 1984 as the dynamical
> > time scale for solar-system barycentric phenomena. >>
> > http://ana.lmsal.com/ana/ana/Time_Scales.html
> >
> > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/systime.html
> >
> > No one is questioning that the GPS factory preset is for a
> > "geocentric phenomena". But only fools that believe
> > in causality violation would attribute it to "gravitational redshift"
>
> So we can conclude that it is no question about
> the actual facts. The correction predicted by GR
> is proven correct.

Which correction? gravitational redshift?

> That confirms GR, doesn't it?
> Whatever you insist on calling the phenomenon
> cannot change that, can it?
>
>
> >>>Maybe Nikolaos K Pavlis and Marc A Weiss need
> >>>someone like you to do a little typing and filing since
> >>>you're so good at editing their work.
> >>
> >>What the hell are you babbling about?
> >>I never quoted them.
> >>
> >>You are lying when you accuse me of misquoting them.
> >>
> >>
> >>>What they really wrote:
> >>>"We have estimated the relativistic redshift correction "
> >>>"The minus sign implies that clocks run faster in the laboratory
> >>> in Boulder than a standard clock located on the geoid."
> >>
> >>Exactly.
> >>And this is a very exact calculation of the prediction of GR.
> >>(The difficulty being to find the exact gravitational potential
> >> difference Boulder - geoid)
> >>
> >>But what is your point?
> >>Do you have one?
>
> >>>Lying about what folks say the way you just did
> >>>is criminal.
> >>
> >>So your lie about what I said make you a criminal?
> >>Your words, not mine.
> >
> >
> > You'd cut and paste if you had any intention faithfully
> > representing the writer's intent.
> >
> > You had to go to a bit of trouble to remove the word
> > "implies" .
>
> Remove?
> How can I remove a word I haven't used from my text?
> Did you mean to say that I had to go to a bit of trouble
> not to use the word "imply" when I wrote:
> | Standard clocks in the UTC system which are not on
> | the geoid has to be corrected for this.
> | For example the standard clock at NIST, Boulder Colorado
> | is running fast by a factor ca. 1.8*10^-13 compared
> | to clocks on the geoid (if it weren't corrected).

Where are the clocks on the geoid ? Denver ?
Golden? Salt Lake City ?

> ?
>
> Why do you think so?
> Where would you like me to use the word "implies"?
Put it the same place the author did.

>
> >>Maybe you should be more careful with
> >>your allegations in the future?
> >>
> >>You know, making obvious false accusations like
> >>this because you cannot find anything sensible to say,
> >>will only make you look stupid.
> >
> >
> > I'd rather look stupid than look like a liar.
>
> But I am sorry to have to inform you that you do
> look like a stupid liar.
> With all due respect, I will advice you not
> to lie so obviously next time.
>
> It IS rather stupid to accuse me of a misquotation
> of someone everybody can see I never quoted, you see.

I can't even spell that word. I called you a LIAR!

> Whether you name it "gravitational red shift",
> "altitude effect" or whatever is of no consequence.
> Standard clocks in the UTC system which are not on
> the geoid has to be corrected for this.
> For example the standard clock at NIST, Boulder Colorado:
> http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/fountain.htm
> is running fast by a factor ca. 1.8*10^-13 compared
> to clocks on the geoid (if it weren't corrected).
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0026-1394/40/2/311

Did you mean to snip that link above?

Abstract. We have estimated the relativistic redshift
correction due to gravity, necessary to reference to the
geoid the measurements of the new frequency standards
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, USA, using a new local
survey and various methods and models. We referenced
the frequency offsets computed from different methods
to the same geoid surface, one defined with respect to
the current best estimate of an ideal mean-Earth ellipsoid.
The new fractional frequency results are (1) -1797.61×10-16,
based on the global gravitational model EGM96;
(2a) -1798.72×10-16, based on the regional, high-resolution
geoid model G96SSS; (2b) -1798.49×10-16, based on the
regional, high-resolution geoid model G99SSS; and (3) -1798.91×10-16,
based on the value for the geopotential number provided in the
National Geodetic Survey's data *** for the NIST reference
marker. The minus sign implies that clocks run faster in the
laboratory in Boulder than a standard clock located on the
geoid. The values from (2b) and (3) are expected to be the
most accurate and are also independent. Based on these results,
we estimate the frequency shift at the reference point at NIST to
be -1798.7×10-16, with an estimated standard uncertainty
of ±0.3×10-16.

>
> BTW, what was it you tried to tell me in this posting?
> As far I can see, you have only confirmed that the correction
> of the clock in Boulder is as I stated.
> If you did have a point, I must have missed it.
> Did you actually have one?

The decision of an evenly split committe has no affect
on the clock in Boulder. So the committie's action is not
proof of any physical phenomena.

Sue...

>
> Paul

Quantcast