Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:04:26 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <65006a73bc196736fbec3d54e21fa717@www.novabbs.com> <vr9tmf$q4vi$1@dont-email.me> <0c0b2bb49434e61879858abed2b9d6c2@www.novabbs.com> <vrbtgj$2k1q7$1@dont-email.me> <a1b3bbfca4b1e9797d98903a77f0cf59@www.novabbs.com> <f58a6ba75e73908078c5576f74ffe329@www.novabbs.com> <9ed9e92086e0d99fde7d81edfced643a@www.novabbs.com> <0082c223a6c8e6952b11ec32b83c473b@www.novabbs.com> <d38ac7fb8de3a1e3c8f08908a6e1953a@www.novabbs.com> <40f0e2c10ed1e2c2d24989b4c7917802@www.novabbs.com> <vrf73v$1iffb$1@dont-email.me> <c6032fd09dd139befbdfc8b5d8b477b6@www.novabbs.com> <vri0qb$30cv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <vri0qb$30cv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 145
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 06:04:24 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 7000
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <182ebc3a4acd312a$854514$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 7402

W dniu 20.03.2025 o 22:24, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 19.03.2025 22:38, skrev rhertz:
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:53:36 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> <snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
>> idiocy>
>>
>>> You claim to be an engineer.
>>> When an engineer by practical measurement finds that the SV clock
>>> runs too fast by Δf/f = 4.425e-10, wouldn't he correct the problem
>>> by adjusting the clock down by  Δf/f = - 4.425e-10 ?
>>>
>>> What would the engineer Richard Hertz do?
>>> Claim that the measurements must be wrong because he did't
>>> get the expected result, and give up the GPS project?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You are an engineer too.
>>
>> The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
>> 10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.
> 
> No, that was what YOU said.
> I was responding to your scenario:
> 
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> |- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured
> |   by accumulating  counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master
> |   TCXO clock. This, to accumulate  pulses with a period of
> |   97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an  onboard
> |   digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits).
> |   Such  data,  at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent
> |   down to Earth station,  where  a twin Cs clock is also counting
> |   pulses in sync with the onboard Cs clock.
> |   Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
> 
> You say that the reference frequency is 10.23 Mhz, but in
> a GPS SV clock the reference frequency is: 10.2299999954326 MHz
> 
> So the clock you describe is an ordinary clock running
> at the rate defined by SI.
> After 86,400 seconds the clock will show 86,400 seconds,
> and your counter would have counted 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000 cycles,
> just as you correctly states.
> 
> An ordinary SI-clock will obviously always show 86400 seconds
> when it has been running for 86400 seconds.
> It doesn't matter if the clock is in a satellite, on the ground
> or on the moon.
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> But let us see if we can find your missing pulses.
> A "solar day" is defined as the time between each time the sun
> passes the same meridian. Let us suppose that we are at one
> of the two times of the year when a solar day by a clock
> at Earth's geoid is measured to be 86400 seconds.
> 
> A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
> will according to GR measure a solar day to be
>    86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs
> 
> Note that this means that the SV clock will be 38.575μs
> more ahead of the ground clock every day.
> 
> The number of pulses from the oscillator counted by your counter
> will then be  86400*(1+4.4647e-10)*10.23e6 = 883872000394 pulses.
> 
> The counter on the ground will count 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000
> pulses from the local oscillator.
> So the counter in the SV will count 394 pulses more.
> 
> There are your missing counts.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
> by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
> a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.
> 
> So when you specified that the counter should count the pulses
> during 86400 seconds, you missed the pulses sent during the 38.575μs.
> 
> That's why I wrote:
> 
> "If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
>   oscillator for 86,400 sec measured in the satellite, then:
>   the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles"
> 
> 
>>
>> They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
>> 10,229,999.995430 Hz,
>> with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.
> 
> Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.
> 
> In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
> by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
> during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
> 
> So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.
> 
>>
>> Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
>> (1 day).
> 
> Right.
> 
>>
>> Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
>> day).
> 
> It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)
> 
>>
>>
>> The STUPID CLAIM OF RELATIVISTS is that the frequency L1 (1575.42 Mhz),
>> which is GENERATED BY MULTIPLYING THE MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz by
>> EXACTLY 154 is what ALLOWS THAT SUCH CARRIER REACHES EARTH AS IF IT WAS
>> GENERATED BY THE ONBOARD Cs CLOCK WORKING AT 10,229,999.995430 Hz,
>> creating an L1 carrier at the GPS SV of 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz.
> 
> What are you talking about?
> All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
> frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.
> 
>  From the Interface Specification Document.
> ------------------------------------------
> The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
> derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
> frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground 
> -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
> would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
> Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
> rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 
> 10.2299999954326 MHz.

A fanatic idiot is asserting; the measurement
(comparing the rate to a local clock) says
otherwise.