Falling photons http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017



"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns96A8DDCE7398AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:42f293d6$0$18647$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:Xns96A8AAEC54D8AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> news:42f28219$0$18647$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "bz" <bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns96A8911F72BF3WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> >> news:42f2532a$0$18637 $14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Do you contend that even though the numbers are about those
> >> >> >> predicted by GR, that doesn't support GR? I would say it doesn't
> >> >> >> PROVE GR, but then
> >> >> we
> >> >> >> know that no theory can ever be proven.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No I don't. Until you explain WHY[1] I should accept a 20,000 km
> >> >> > error in the prediction and do so without need for need for shafts
> >> >> > whose ends turn at different rates
> >> >>
> >> >> Explain to me a bit more about the 20,000 km discrepancy. Are we
> >> >> talking about GPS satellite altitude or syncronous orbital altitude?
> >> >
> >> > OK AE, even before writing formal papers felt that light should gain
> >> > enegy falling. (duhhh why should massless entities fall ? ) So he
> >> > predicted that Newton's corpuscular light should loose it's potential
> >> > energy as it fell. A red shift. "in flight" or during propagation.
> >> > Under the influence of gravity.
> >> >
> >> > If I tell you I am painting new cars on a freigher but instead paint
> >> > them in the factory, the customer may or may not know the difference
> >> > but the stockholders surely will. We can't just say "Eh you got the
> >> > right color so shut up"
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Which direction is the 20,000 km discrpancy? Along the earths orbit
> >> >> around the sun, the satellites orbit around the earth, the radius of
> >> >> one of those, or are you talking about a 66710 micro second
> >> >> discrepancy in time, giving us a distance of 20000 km?
> >> >
> >> > The force of gravity is less at 20,000 km.
> >>
> >> To be precise, 0.037 g or 3.746% of the surface gravity, as I think I
> >> may have mentioned in other posts.
> >>
> >> > So less damping makes
> >> > higher frequency. Same for nearly any accelerometer or gravimeter
> >> > that vibrates or oscillates.
> >>
> >> But that doesn't explain your '20,000 km' discrepancy, because the
> >> schwartzchild metric, which follows Einsteins formula,
> >>
> >> >> As the orbital altitude for a geosync sat is about 35787 km msl,
> >> >> while the GPS satellites orbit at around 20184 km, it seems unlikely
> >> >> that the 20,000 km is related to the orbital altitude.
> >> >
> >> > I rounded the GPS altitude.
> >>
> >> ok.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> << Clock-driven transmitters send out synchronous time signals,
> >> >> tagged with the position and time of the transmission event,
> >> >> . . .
> >> >> The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days
> >> >> to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer.
> >> >> The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts
> >> >> in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected
> >> >> this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000
> >> >> nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and
> >> >> measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in
> >> >> 10^12, well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting
> >> >> clock. >> http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > That doesn't tell us WHY and it is anecdotal only.
> >>
> >> Science doesn't answer WHY questions. If you want answers to WHY
> >> questions, go to church.
> >
> > You are not "science" and many others DO know why.
> You are not "science" either.
>
> >
> >>
> >> It answers 'what' questions.... 'what will happen if we do ....'
> >
> > You are not "science" and many others DO know why.
> You are not "science" either.
>
> >>
> >> WE often ask why questions as we try to formulate theories, but the
> >> theories only give us a way to develope and remember the formula that
> >> allow us to predict what.
> >
> > I am not asking you to explain the effect. I am asking you
> > why we should accept a quantative error? If you don't
> > know why we should accept the error, then we must
> > reject the theory.
>
> You have yet to present a quantative error.
Read the paper in the subject line.
>You said the error was 20000
> km. You have not demonstrated any such error.
Mathematical absurdities don't warrant such testing.
>You appear to have an
> explanation that you prefer for the 38,232 nanoseconds per day that the
> uncorrected clocks in GPS orbit would gain.

I do. 45 - 7 = 38 ...but
Newton - Doppler does not equal Relativity
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

>
> The 38,232 nanoseconds is a measured FACT. Unless you want to argue with
> how that data was obtained, you must accept the clock gained 38,232
> nanosecond per day when it was orbited.
>
> >> >> > It is not a matter of good or evil, right or wrong. It sets forth
> >> >> > certain principles that we can use if they work discard if they
> >> >> > don't. If there is a paradox, absurditiy or causality violation,
> >> >> > you have discovered a weakness in the theory, not some new physics
> >> >> > to champion like a television preacher.
> >>
> >> yep.
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sue...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1] there is a valid reason but I don't believe you know what it
> >> >> > is.
> >> >>
> >> >> Until I know more about the discrepancy, I certainly can't suggest a
> >> >> reason. Even after, I may not be able to suggest one.
> >> >
> >> > The discrepancy is that an adjacent satellite will see the shift.
> >> > The theory says the shift would not occur until the signal reached
> >> > the ground.
> >>
> >> Ah... but that is WRONG. If adjacent satellites carry clocks, they will
> >
> > Adjacent satellites carry speedometer cables.
>
> They can carry whips and chains for all I care, identical clocks in
> adjacent satellites should run at the same speed, unless the atoms get
> specially excited by speedometer cables.

There are no identical clocks. There are shafts whose ends
turn at identical rate and garden hoses that hold an identical
count of marbles.

>
> Your added satellite doesn't seem to help the experiment. Nor do your
> objections seem to have anything to do with falling photons gaining or
> losing energy.

Then don't use it.

>
> We are talking about observable data and logic.
Is it logical a baseball catcher could catch 31 balls per minute
if the pitcher is throwing 30 balls per minute?

And this:
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg
is the counter to your next argument so don't even make it.

>
> If you have alternative formula and predictions as to how fast the first
> GPS clock should have run during the first 20 days in orbit, please present
> them.

I already did. Use the gravitational damping and Newtons second law.
Then you don't have a mathematical absurbdity in your calculations.

>
> Keep in mind that the data indicates the clock gained ~764 us during that
> 20 day period and that gain was within ~6.86 us of the gain predicted when
> gravity, velocity and sagnac effects were all considered.
>
> 6.86 us represents an error of 2.05 km over a distance of 20 light days, so
> I still don't see 20,000 km.

The frequency shift occured 20,000 km from where Einstein predicted
it would occur. It is an emission effect. As Pound Snider suspected.
AE predicted a propagation effect.
The Pound-Snider paper worded the tile carefully
*apparent* weight that termed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
It was the AE proponents hell-bent for evidence that corrupted
the interpretation. Do you have a dog in the fight like some or do you
just support charlatans and hucksters[1] out of the goodness of
your heart? :o)

Sue...
[1] I am not refering to AE.

>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory
    ... > You are giving me the GR predictions. ... The first task when the clocks are placed in orbit is to ... > The rate at which each clock cuts the Earth's fields is also different. ... A tiny voltage induced by satellites cutting ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory
    ... > You are giving me the GR predictions. ... The first task when the clocks are placed in orbit is to ... > The rate at which each clock cuts the Earth's fields is also different. ... A tiny voltage induced by satellites cutting ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: List of Cranks here
    ... I will explain to him how satellites are used to ... Synchronized clocks can be used to ... sends them signals that tells them, ... the GPS receiver must subtract about .006 seconds ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics Cultists
    ... Synchronized clocks can be used to ... the satellites were when they transmitted the time. ... sends them signals that tells them, ... the GPS receiver must subtract about .006 seconds ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The birth of General Relativity
    ... Synchronized clocks can be used to ... the satellites were when they transmitted the time. ... sends them signals that tells them, ... As portable GPS receivers do not have ...
    (sci.physics)