Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:52:07 +0100
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>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <67dbe545$0$28066$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Mar 2025 10:52:05 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1742464325 news-4.free.fr 28066 213.10.137.58:52043
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 7097

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 19.03.2025 01:58, skrev rhertz:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:42:44 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> >> I only support what I have determined the way the world actually works.
> >> I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
> >> system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
> >> like certain people in this "discussion" group.
> > 
> > YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
> > here).
> > 
> > Your belief is trapped in circular and fallacious logic. Here is why:
> > 
> > - The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
> > measurements.
> 
> I suppose you are talking about the GPS.
> 
> Below gharnagel has explained that the rate of an uncorrected
> was measured for 40 days and found to be fast.
> I will add one important thing, though.
> It is obviously impossible to measure the frequency of the signal
> from the ground, the Doppler shift is many order of magnitude
> bigger than the GR correction so that was not what was done..
> The SV is transmitting its time, and there are a number of
> monitoring stations that can read what time of the SV clock.
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> 
> The reading of the SV clock was compared to the master clock.
> When the uncorrected clock had run for 6 day's it was 229.4 ?s
> ahead of the master clock, that's 38.2 ?s/day or (1 + 442.5e-12)
> too fast.
> 
> FACT: The measurements in 1977 _proved_ that the proper time ??
> of the unadjusted clock in NTS-2 advanced faster than
> the proper time ?? of the clock on the ground, and the difference
> was d??/d?? = (1 + 4.425e-10)
> 
> GR predicts d??/d?? = (1 + 4.4647e-10), GR confirmed within less than 1%
> 
> Close to 50 years operation of the GPS has confirmed GR to much
> better precision.
> 
> You have been told this many times, but you seem to believe
> that you cam make facts go away by calling them BULLSHIT.
> 
> But facts won't go away, so you are only making a fool of yourself
> by denying their existence.
> 
> > 
> > - 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> The ground    counter counts 883872000000 cycles.
> 
> >   Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
> 
> Which pulses do you miss? :-D
> 
> I wonder, is it a trick to imply that some pulses should be missing,
> or do you really believe that there according to GR should be some?
> 
> I understand from where your blunder comes, though.
> 
> If the satellite transmitted the 10.23 MHz, then according to GR
> 883872000394 pulses would hit the ground during one solar day.
> Obviously impossible to count.
> 
> But you are right about one thing.
> If GR had predicted what you think it predicts, GR would be nonsense.
> But it doesn't.

Wonderful image: suppose RH has a grandfather clock
that runs one second per day slow.
I imagine RH watching it intently for a day and a night
to catch it in the act of losing that one swing of the pendulum.

> >   I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the problem
> > had
> >   even implemented to prove the fucking (WARNING: severe profanity)
> > relativity
> >   in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.
> > 
> > - The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL SEPARATION
> > of GR
> >   and SR effects using Schwarzschild. It's the same crap that in the
> > Hafele-
> >   Keating 1972 experiment, where data for SR and GR were calculated
> >   theoretically.
> > 
> > - The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
> >   Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
> >   trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!
> > 
> > 
> > I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table. You
> > will rationalize and negate what I wrote.
> 
> You claim to be an engineer.
> When an engineer by practical measurement finds that the SV clock
> runs too fast by ?f/f = 4.425e-10, wouldn't he correct the problem
> by adjusting the clock down by  ?f/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?

Supposing relativity (and Lorentz aether theory)
had never been thought of, that is just what engineers would have done:
apply an empirical correction for some mysterious non-understood effect.
Of course someone would have invented the correct theory to go with it,
after which it would no longer be mysterious.

Becoming engineering is what happens eventually
to all obviously correct scientific theories,
like general relativity: they are routinely applied,
to make things that -just work-.
These days all of astronomy and satellite navigation
has reached that stage,

Jan