# Re: Potter's Prediction -- that an oscillator will oscillate at a slightly higher frequency in orbit

On 7 août, 18:00, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 7 août, 15:52, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 7 août, 12:35, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Disappointed, I am, that you, André, are painting yourself into a corner.
You say that "transverse velocities are too small to make any difference"
which implies that frequency offsets are not required for high accuracy
operation of the GPS.
Not saying that at all. Transverse velocities with respect to ground definitely
impacts the signal transmission frequencies to ground, but this has nothing
to do with the actual frequency that the cesium clock locally operates at in
orbit or at any other altitude.
By nature, local atomic clock frequencies can depend only on the local
intensity of the gravitational field.
The ref that you referred me to does not clearly distinguish both issues
(local cesium frequency vs transmission frequencies depending on relative motion.
I get the impression you are confusing general relativity (the correct tool
for dealing with satellite clocks) and special relativity (which doesn't
correctly deal with the differential gravitational environment of the GPS).
I am not confusing both. Even GR cannot cause ultra low velocities such
as satellite velocities to behave as if relativistic velocities had been reached.
As for SR, I fully agree that it cannot correctly deal with this issue. But
it could if properly corrected to account for nuclei contraction. I have
explained this summarily a few times in the past here since it is
directly linked to one of the Pioneers so-called anomalies, but of course,
no one even listens.
André Michaud
The most instructive thing for you is to calculate how fast or slow a clock
is running at different orbital radii about the earth and compare that with
the actual published rates for geosynchronous, GPS and GLONASS satellites
and the ISS.

Here's a graph of what you are looking for.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

I looked at this graph the first time you showed it to me.

Maybe you can light my candle on some issues.

From fundamental theory, the reference level is sea-level
ground cesium clock frequency. It is use as the basis for
calculating the second.

Why should it matter...

Wow! What an interesting question!!!

It does matter because the second is defined with respect
to the cesium frequency at ground level. Since that frequency
varies with altitude, it matters quite a lot.

the definition is 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, which would be the
same in all inertial frames.

The standard second is set by convention to be the duration
of the ground level cesium reference frequency, so yes, it
is fine to have it accepted as being the same in all inertial
frames. No problem. We do need conventions.

This is why it is important to specify that the reference is
the ground level cesium ref frequency, which I found is not
clarified in the formal definition.

There was that experiment with a cesium clock being
carried in a plane at 10000 feed. I never could lay hand
on any ref that gave the actual frequency measured, although
it is reported to be higher, as predicted.

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

I am aware of the orthodox interpretation. But since clear
understanding
that nuclei are not elementary particles and that constituting quark
translation
orbit diameter is by nature bound to vary with the density of
surrounding
matter (SR has never been adapted to account for this known fact),
thus
causing local nuclear rest mass to also vary with altitude, it is
clear to
me that increased ref cesium frequency with altitude is simply due to
triad contaction due to diminishing surrounding density of matter
(diminishing gravitation), and has consequently nothing to do with
so-called time dilation with altitude.

I have tried many times to summarily explain this here over the years
since this directly explains one of the Pioneers so-called anomalies,
but no one listens.

Stuff for the next generation to analyze, obviously.

If you could provide this frequency to me or a ref that
contains the "SR-GR uninterpreted" raw frequency
measured, I would be very appreciative.

I would likewise appreciate raw frequency measured
at the GPS orbital level system, and at the geostationary
level if a cesium clock was ever lifted to such orbits.

NGA GPS Ephemeris/Station/Antenna Offset Documentation
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/sathtml/gpsdoc2006_11a.html

GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf

GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm

Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf

I will study the refs.

With such data, I could extrapolate the correct curve.

I suppose that on this graph the "shuttle" ref corresponds
to the ISS orbit ? If so, I cannot use this curve since it
doesn't start at ground zero (sea level)

The graph starts at the center of the earth! Earth's radius is
6378.137 km.

Thanks, difficult to assert without the matching equation.

Do you have the equation that matches the graph ?

André Michaud

.

• Follow-Ups:
• References: