First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light

September 20, 2018, Royal Astronomical Society

Characteristic disc structure from the simulation of a misaligned disc around a spinning black hole. Credit: K. Pounds et al. / University of Leicester
A UK team of astronomers report the first detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light, located in the centre of the billion-light year distant galaxy PG1211+143. The team, led by Professor Ken Pounds of the University of Leicester, used data from the European Space Agency's X-ray observatory XMM-Newton to observe the black hole. Their results appear in a new paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Black holes are objects with such strong gravitational fields that not even light travels quickly enough to escape their grasp, hence the description "black." They are hugely important in astronomy because they offer the most efficient way of extractingenergy from matter. As a direct result, gas in-fall – accretion – onto black holes mustbepowering the most energetic phenomena in the Universe.

The centre of almost every galaxy – like our own Milky Way – contains a so-called , with masses of millions to billions of times the mass of our Sun. With sufficient matter falling into the hole, these can become extremely luminous, and are seen as a quasar or active galactic nucleus (AGN).

However black holes are so compact that gas is almost always rotating too much to fall in directly. Instead it orbits the hole, approaching gradually through an accretion disc—a sequence of circular orbits of decreasing size. As gas spirals inwards, it moves faster and faster and becomes hot and luminous, turning gravitational energy into the radiation that astronomers observe.

The orbit of the gas around the black hole is often assumed to be aligned with the rotation of the black hole, but there is no compelling reason for this to be the case. In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun.

Until now it has been unclear how misaligned rotation might affect the in-fall of gas. This is particularly relevant to the feeding of supermassive black holes since matter ( or even isolated stars) can fall in from any direction.

First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light
The XMM-Newton spacecraft. Credit: ESA

Using data from XMM-Newton, Prof. Pounds and his collaborators looked at X-ray spectra (where X-rays are dispersed by wavelength) from the galaxy PG211+143. This object lies more than one billion light years away in the direction of the constellation Coma Berenices, and is a Seyfert galaxy, characterised by a very bright AGN resulting from the presence of the at its nucleus.

The researchers found the spectra to be strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, or around 100,000 kilometres per second. The gas has almost no rotation aroundthe hole, and is detected extremely close to it in astronomical terms, at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size (its event horizon, the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible).

The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole.

Prof. Pounds, from the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy, said: "The galaxy we were observing with XMM-Newton has a 40 million solar which is very bright and evidently well fed. Indeed some 15 years ago we detected a powerful wind indicating the hole was being over-fed. While such winds are now found in many active galaxies, PG1211+143 has now yielded another 'first," with the detection of matter plunging directly into the hole itself."

He continues: "We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole."

A further implication of the new research is that 'chaotic accretion' from misaligned discs is likely to be common for . Such black holes would then spin quite slowly, being able to accept far more gas and grow their masses more rapidly than generally believed, providing an explanation for why which formed in the early Universe quickly gained very large masses.

Explore further: Image: Black hole bounty captured in the center of the Milky Way

More information: K A Pounds et al. An ultra-fast inflow in the luminous Seyfert PG1211+143, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2359

Related Stories

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

Hubble image: The sleeping giant

February 11, 2016

The placid appearance of NGC 4889 can fool the unsuspecting observer. But the elliptical galaxy, pictured in this new image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, harbours a dark secret. At its heart lurks one of the most ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta witnesses birth of baby bow shock around comet

December 12, 2018

A new study reveals that, contrary to first impressions, Rosetta did detect signs of an infant bow shock at the comet it explored for two years – the first ever seen forming anywhere in the solar system.

Periodic radio signal detected from the blazar J1043+2408

December 12, 2018

Using Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO), astronomers have detected a periodic signal in the radio light curve of the blazar J1043+2408, which could be helpful in improving our understanding about the nature of blazars ...

The epoch of planet formation, times twenty

December 12, 2018

Astronomers have cataloged nearly 4,000 exoplanets in orbit around distant stars. Though the discovery of these newfound worlds has taught us much, there is still a great deal we do not know about the birth of planets and ...

Juno mission halfway to Jupiter science

December 12, 2018

On Dec. 21, at 8:49:48 a.m. PST (11:49:48 a.m. EST) NASA's Juno spacecraft will be 3,140 miles (5,053 kilometers) above Jupiter's cloud tops and hurtling by at a healthy clip of 128,802 mph (207,287 kilometers per hour). ...

378 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hat1208
1.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
Yes but why would they spin?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2018
Yes but why would they spin?


I read somewhere recently that given that the stars from which they form are spinning, then we should expect the BH to spin. That's my understanding of it, anyway.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 20, 2018
Nothing spins any where do to gravity alone, spin is an electromagnetic characteristic. And there is no BH, anywhere except in a maths equations. They are the ultimate contradiction of reality, fanciful pontifications of plasma ignoramuses.

The plasma is not "falling" into a faerie tale, it is flowing into and powering the central plasmoid
barakn
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018
Yes but why would they spin?

Conservation of angular momentum
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2018
Conservation of angular momentum

If it is already spinning...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (16) Sep 20, 2018
Nothing spins any where do to gravity alone, spin is an electromagnetic characteristic. And there is no BH, anywhere except in a maths equations. They are the ultimate contradiction of reality, fanciful pontifications of plasma ignoramuses.

The plasma is not "falling" into a faerie tale, it is flowing into and powering the central plasmoid


Lol! A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not. There is only one plasma ignoramus here, and that is you. Tell us - how fast was Earth spinning when it was orbiting Saturn?
hat1208
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
@cantdrive85

If it is already spinning...

You just said;

Nothing spins any where do to gravity alone, spin is an electromagnetic characteristic. And there is no BH, anywhere except in a maths equations.

Is it spinning or not?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2018
A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not.

What is the limit to the size of a plasmoid? Plasma scales across 27 orders of magnitude (at least), why would plasmoids be omitted from scaling up?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018
Conservation of angular momentum

If it is already spinning...


No, dummy. If a star is rotating, then if its radius decreases it spins faster. Neutron stars are already spinning at a furious rate, hence the pulsars we detect.
hat1208
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
@barakn @jonesdave

So this would be different than the DCBH from a couple days ago? Thanks in advance
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2018
A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not.

What is the limit to the size of a plasmoid? Plasma scales across 27 orders of magnitude (at least), why would plasmoids be omitted from scaling up?


Please show me the paper that suggests the Sgr A* is a bloody plasmoid. Which moron suggested that? Where is the maths to describe the stellar orbits in the central parsec? Sorry, you can't just make sh1t up. Prove it. Quantitatively.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
Nothing spins any where do to gravity alone, spin is an electromagnetic characteristic. And there is no BH, anywhere except in a maths equations.

Is it spinning or not?

Of course it is, but not due to gravity but the rotation of the Birkeland current powering the galaxy.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2018
@barakn @jonesdave

So this would be different than the DCBH from a couple days ago? Thanks in advance


This stuff gets very deep. Here is a summary from Wiki:

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018
If a star is rotating, then if its radius decreases it spins faster.

And why is the star spinning?

Neutron stars are already spinning at a furious rate, hence the pulsars we detect.

Neutron stars are as real as black holes, leprechauns, and Pegasus, they are abominations of physical reality. Pulsars are due to oscillations in the currents feeding the stars.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2018
Nothing spins any where do to gravity alone, spin is an electromagnetic characteristic. And there is no BH, anywhere except in a maths equations.

Is it spinning or not?

Of course it is, but not due to gravity but the rotation of the Birkeland current powering the galaxy.


What Birkeland current? Evidence, please. And you still need to explain those orbits of essentially charge neutral stars. Impossible, and nobody in their right mind believes such nonsense.
hat1208
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
@cantdrive85

I have been reading up on Birkeland current.

The Birkeland currents occur in two pairs of field-aligned current sheets. One pair extends from noon through the dusk sector to the midnight sector.

This description intimates spin?
jkirwan
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
This very weak analogy from the article author bothers me: "In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun." What does the motion of the sun along the Earth's ecliptic have to do with the article's subject matter?? Nothing, whatsoever.

A closer analogy regarding particles revolving around a black hole would be the Earth as a particle revolving around Sol. And here, there is only about 7 degrees difference between the sun's equatorial plane and the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun. Rather than arguing against it, his fact actually argues in favor of the assumption that the author pointed out in the immediately prior sentence.

The article author should spend more time thinking, before writing (or copying) that analogy.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2018
If a star is rotating, then if its radius decreases it spins faster.

And why is the star spinning?

Neutron stars are already spinning at a furious rate, hence the pulsars we detect.

Neutron stars are as real as black holes, leprechauns, and Pegasus, they are abominations of physical reality. Pulsars are due to oscillations in the currents feeding the stars.


Jesus, what an idiot! Evidence please. Who wrote this crap, and where is it published? How did they describe the observed neutron star merger? I notice that the EU wooists have gone as quiet on that as they did when an impact blew a shed load of ice out of Tempel 1. Why do you continue to follow these proven liars?
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2018
@cantdrive85

I have been reading up on Birkeland current.

Try these two papers, they give the maths derivation of the Birkeland currents. And no, Birkeland currents are not just what powers Earth's auroras but is use as a generic term for all field-aligned electric currents by real plasma physicists.
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun


I think you'll find that the BH is at an angle to the galactic plane. This is similar to the fact that the Earth has an axis that is tilted ~ 23.5 degrees to the Earth's orbital plane around the Sun.

Always best to read the papers, if possible, than the press releases. PRs are for the public, papers are for scientists.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
@cantdrive85

I have been reading up on Birkeland current.

Try these two papers, they give the maths derivation of the Birkeland currents. And no, Birkeland currents are not just what powers Earth's auroras but is use as a generic term for all field-aligned electric currents by real plasma physicists.
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF


Take no notice of the linked papers, Hat. The author is an electric universe loon, and knows crap about astrophysics. Which is why his abysmal woo is published in a crank journal;

https://en.wikipe..._Physics

I could get my theory (sorry, hypothesis) of a unicorn dominated universe published in there. It is little different to Vixra.
hat1208
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
@jonesdave

Thanks for the link, I had a pretty good idea that they are deep. The spinning conjecture came from the item a couple of days ago about the DCBH which sounds as if there is no spin associated with the collapse also the analog of "tearing" of the event horizon and leaking matter directly onto the black hole surface. Is it possible that the event horizon is what is spinning not the black hole? Or would that be self evident from the equations. My math is not strong enough to dig too deep into that aspect, thus I am here.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
@jonesdave

Thanks for the link, I had a pretty good idea that they are deep. The spinning conjecture came from the item a couple of days ago about the DCBH which sounds as if there is no spin associated with the collapse also the analog of "tearing" of the event horizon and leaking matter directly onto the black hole surface. Is it possible that the event horizon is what is spinning not the black hole? Or would that be self evident from the equations. My math is not strong enough to dig too deep into that aspect, thus I am here.


Sorry, when I said 'deep' I meant complicated. If you look at the Kerr metric, it is horrendous, mathematically speaking. Essentially, when a black hole forms, it is assumed that, to conserve angular momentum, it is rotating. Inside the EH we see nothing, by definition. Outside of it one would expect the accretion disk to be aligned with the 'equator' of the BH.
The paper is here:
https://academic..../5090165

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not.

What is the limit to the size of a plasmoid? Plasma scales across 27 orders of magnitude (at least), why would plasmoids be omitted from scaling up?
says CD85

I believe that a Plasmoid is the product of Electromagnetism. Since EM is Energy, I don't see that there should be any limit to its size. On the other hand, Matter could be limited in size due to it being affected by gravity.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not.

What is the limit to the size of a plasmoid? Plasma scales across 27 orders of magnitude (at least), why would plasmoids be omitted from scaling up?
says CD85

I believe that a Plasmoid is the product of Electromagnetism. Since EM is Energy, I don't see that there should be any limit to its size. On the other hand, Matter could be limited in size due to it being affected by gravity.


Correct. And it is gravity that is causing the observed orbital motions of stars at the galactic centre. No other explanation works. At least none that I have ever seen in the scientific literature.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
From Wiki:

"A plasmoid has an internal pressure stemming from both the gas pressure of the plasma and the magnetic pressure of the field. To maintain an approximately static plasmoid radius, this pressure must be balanced by an external confining pressure. In a field-free vacuum, for example, a plasmoid will rapidly expand and dissipate."

Have you considered at all of the possibility that a Plasmoid in the form of a Torus is encircling a possible Black Hole, and that there is a magnetic field provided by the Plasmoid, and that it is the electromagnetic properties of the Torus/Plasmoid that is drawing jets of energy out of the Black Hole itself? And possibly weakening the Black Hole's gravitational strength, even slightly?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
Have you considered at all of the possibility that a Plasmoid in the form of a Torus is encircling a possible Black Hole, and that there is a magnetic field provided by the Plasmoid, and that it is the electromagnetic properties of the Torus/Plasmoid that is drawing jets of energy out of the Black Hole itself? And possibly weakening the Black Hole's gravitational strength, even slightly?


Nope. However, if it has been written up then I'll read it. What cantthink is suggesting is not a plasmoid around a BH. He is suggesting that the BH doesn't exist, and is, in fact, a plasmoid! Which is idiocy squared.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
If a Black Hole were really a Plasmoid, then the Plasmoid would need the ability of attracting Mass to itself - not necessarily through gravity alone - but only through a closed circuit of electromagnetic attraction that could work on the magnetic fields of Stars. A closed circuit could be a Torus. Gravity could have an effect on bodies outside of the Torus, attracting those bodies close enough to the Torus and then dragging them inwards. Any Black Hole would be very small, while the Plasmoid/Torus itself will be virtually optically invisible.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
If a Black Hole were really a Plasmoid, then the Plasmoid would need the ability of attracting Mass to itself - not necessarily through gravity alone - but only through a closed circuit of electromagnetic attraction that could work on the magnetic fields of Stars.


No, it would attract a charge that is opposite to the charge of the plasmoid. Stars are, by definition, essentially electrically neutral. Nothing to attract. Certainly, nobody has ever produced a paper suggesting this, with the requisite maths to explain the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre. It is a really, really dumb idea. Which is why it doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
I will take my suggestion to a bona fide astrophysicist at University to confirm or deny. And I ask cantdrive85 to do the same. Anything is possible in this Reality.
I believe that the formation of Black Holes depend lastly on Gravity, compression, density, but there are other forces with the ability to counter the weak force of gravity - and it is such a supreme force that can settle this once and for all.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
It may seem to be a dumb idea now, but it is still early in the game so we shall see. I have noticed that many Astrophysicists are actually open to what are considered "dumb ideas". This is due to the fact that each team prefers to be THE ONE who finds the answers ahead of all others.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
A plasmoid with a mass of 4m Suns! Highly likely. Not.

What is the limit to the size of a plasmoid? Plasma scales across 27 orders of magnitude (at least), why would plasmoids be omitted from scaling up?

It's not the size, CD. It's the density...
Reach a certain density and it isn't a plasmoid anymore, it's solid mass. Gravity has done it's magic...
SEU - Gravity is cumulative while, charge - not so much...
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
I will take my suggestion to a bona fide astrophysicist at University to confirm or deny. And I ask cantdrive85 to do the same. Anything is possible in this Reality.
I believe that the formation of Black Holes depend lastly on Gravity, compression, density, but there are other forces with the ability to counter the weak force of gravity - and it is such a supreme force that can settle this once and for all.


I would suggest reading squillions of scientific papers on the subject by many astrophysicists. Google Scholar is your friend.
Unfortunately for cantthink, his cult possesses no astrophysicists. Or, indeed, physicists of any sort. Merely Velikovskian loons.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
It may seem to be a dumb idea now, but it is still early in the game so we shall see. I have noticed that many Astrophysicists are actually open to what are considered "dumb ideas". This is due to the fact that each team prefers to be THE ONE who finds the answers ahead of all others.


Nope. It is scientifically impossible. Which is why you won't find it in the scientific literature. Pure woo.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
That is provided that there is Gravity at work wrt Plasmoid.

"To maintain an approximately static plasmoid radius, this (internal) pressure must be balanced by an external confining pressure. In a field-free vacuum, for example, a plasmoid will rapidly expand and dissipate."

jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
That is provided that there is Gravity at work wrt Plasmoid.

"To maintain an approximately static plasmoid radius, this (internal) pressure must be balanced by an external confining pressure. In a field-free vacuum, for example, a plasmoid will rapidly expand and dissipate."



Huh? What has that got to do with anything? Explain the observed orbits of stars in the galactic centre using a plasmoid. Just link to the paper.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2018

https://www.resea...82666008

This and an older physorg article is all I could find.
V4Vendicar
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2018
Yes but why would they spin?


Spin is an intrinsic property of matter.
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2018
But if a Black Hole is believed to be a singularity, WHAT is spinning? I guess I'm looking for a qualitative answer when only a quantitative one exists.
My PERSONAL OPINION is that singularities don't form and that the heart of a Black Hole is some kind of Strange Quark Star or other remnant of Quantum collapse. In this fashion we can still have SOMETHING that is spinning. If the Physics break down at a singularity, then surely that tells us they don't exist. We should be inspecting the collapse sequence in more detail.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2018
Spin is an intrinsic property of matter.

Yep, due to the electromagnetic properties of matter. Has nothing to do with gravity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
I suppose jones is still reading the link wrt Plasmoids & Black Holes on .pdf. It is a long one.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
I believe that a Plasmoid is the product of Electromagnetism.

Plasmoids are magnetic structures of plasma (matter) due to electric currents being pinched by EM fields. This video shows how plasmoids form along z-pinch affected electric currents. Notice the jets that are created, just like some galaxies.
https://youtu.be/6ajqD0hoOMw
There is a current threshold in the galactic current that when achieved will ignite the jets. Note the cylindrical form of the pinch device, it is the same form as Scott's Birkeland current model. The maths of which explain the rotation curve of spiral galaxies. No faerie dust needed!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2018
Spinning neutron star to a spinning atom sized singularity
phys.org> The researchers found the spectra strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, or around 100,000 kilometres per second. The gas has almost no rotation around the hole, and is detected extremely close to it in astronomical terms, at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size

Taking the proposition that that this blackhole evolved from a neutron star, as neutron stars are rapidly spinning stars as Jocelyn Bell can contest, having discovered them. If we extrapolate this rotational inertia to a singularity, an atom sized star as JD has given a derivation on a shrinking spinning star, extrapolating 30miles to 1atom gives a rather nifty spinning black hole
All stars in the vacuum spin in spinning galaxies as the earth spins as it orbits its spinning star it is impossible to find a star that does not spin!
granville583762
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
All matter in the vacuum is rotational
phys.org> The researchers found the spectra strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, The gas has almost no rotation around the hole.

As gravity is accelerating the observed matter at 30 per cent of the speed of light, as all matter in the vacuum is rotational (there is no straight line in space due to gravity - Albert Einstein) as all matter in velocity follows a curved path is why this matter was and is spinning due to gravitational acceleration in the vacuum,
This matter condensed and created spinning stars; this matter how ever it is viewed is spinning and is now spinning at 30%C!
big_hairy_jimbo
4 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2018
I've done some research about what is spinning if you have a singularity. It is SPACETIME itself that is rotating.

Thank you granville583762 for also pointing this out.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
A Singularity exists as an atom sized entity

For a blackhole to exist as a gravitational force it has to follow the formula f=g/r, because if a singularity taken to its logical conclusion like the invisible cat in the invisible hat, is so small that r=0 then the gravitational force equals zero where f then equals zero, as the gravitational force can only exists when the radius r is an extremely small radius
.
When a singularity equals zero the gravitational force equals zero and the blackhole ceases to exist.

The blackhole consequently has an atom sized radius and as the neutron star collapsed to this atom sized radius, accordingly to JDs derivation of rotational inertia and conservation of momentum, this blackhole has the same rotational momentum of its neutron star and consequently is an extremely rapidly rotating blackhole!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2018
Derivation of Conservation of angular momentum
Conservation of angular momentum

If it is already spinning...


Jonesdave> If a star is rotating, then if its radius decreases it spins faster. Neutron stars are already spinning at a furious rate, hence the pulsars we detect.

Thanks JD, for pointing this point out.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2018
This Dirac computer has an observational flaw!
Dirac supercomputer simulating the tearing of misaligned accretion discs, has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole.

The planets orbit our star in elliptical orbits, meteorites orbit the sun coming in from light years in elliptical orbits, the galaxy is 2000billion more massive than this blackhole and what is it doing - it is rotating, it has spiral arms in elliptical obit round its centre as the mass is spiralling in towards its centre

The centre of our galaxy is rotating with the mass of our galaxy

The implication the evidence from our galaxy that there is a flaw in the Dirac supercomputer model suggesting "tearing of misaligned accretion discs cancelling out their rotation" as our galaxy bears witness in its rotational spiralling arms, there is no misaligned accretion discs cancelling out their rotation
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2018
@granville
I went back to the other forum and saw that ol' chickenshit Captain StumpyProve-It-To-Me Prove-It-To-Me had returned and was claiming that I was a religionist. He is a liar, of course. I have never been a religionist. It appears that hat1208 is his or grossofotto's sock puppet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
I've done some research about what is spinning if you have a singularity. It is SPACETIME itself that is rotating.

Thank you granville583762 for also pointing this out.
says bhjimbo

Uh could you show us where in this forum (or any other forum) did granville say anything that spacetime itself is rotating. Spacetime is a math concept - it isn't real.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
EDITED:

I've done some research about what is spinning if you have a singularity. It is SPACETIME itself that is rotating.

Thank you granville583762 for also pointing this out.
says bhjimbo

Uh could you show us where in this forum (or any other forum) did granville say anything that spacetime itself is rotating. Spacetime is a math concept - it isn't real.


(Not "rotating" - I meant to say "did granville say anything that spacetime itself is spinning.)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Unbelievable. And yet another disappearing act.
Jones, have you read the link to the paper you wanted yet? The one up there about the Plasmoid and the Black Hole?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Jones says: "it is gravity that is causing the observed orbital motions of stars at the galactic centre. No other explanation works. At least none that I have ever seen"

electromagnetic stresses on galaxy rotation curves

https://arxiv.org...08.09514

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Planet formation starts before stars reaches maturity
phys.org> astronomers has discovered that dust particles around a star already coagulate before the star is fully grown. https://phys.org/...ity.html .

Accretion disks and theirs stars starts as stars are growing where planets are forming in the orbiting dust particles, matter coming from afar joins the orbiting accretion disk – In stark contrast to the claim that this blackhole has matter coming from afar is not spirally orbitaly approaching this blackholes accretion disk, it goes against 13.8 Billion years of observational stellar evolutionary evidence and even the blackholes host galaxy its self is as an orbitaly rotational stellar structure of 1000s of billions of orbitally rotational stars
From billions of galaxies, in a galaxy of 2000billion stars emerging from rotational accretion disks, we observe the only one that is not spinning is incredulousness to say the least.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Jones says: "it is gravity that is causing the observed orbital motions of stars at the galactic centre. No other explanation works. At least none that I have ever seen"

electromagnetic stresses on galaxy rotation curves

https://arxiv.org...08.09514



Non-peer reviewed nonsense. Let me know when and where they get it published.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
There is a current threshold in the galactic current that when achieved will ignite the jets. Note the cylindrical form of the pinch device, it is the same form as Scott's Birkeland current model. The maths of which explain the rotation curve of spiral galaxies. No faerie dust needed!


What galactic current? Evidence of its detection please. And Scott is a complete idiot, which is why no one takes any notice of the silly old bugger.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018

https://www.resea...82666008

This and an older physorg article is all I could find.


Total irrelevance. I keep explaining to you that cantthink denies the existence of a BH. He wants to replace it with a plasmoid. You obviously can't read very well, as this is nothing whatsoever to do with the stellar orbits around the BH. It is about a plasmoid orbiting a BH. They can have no effect on stellar orbits. Why don't you read the paper?

https://arxiv.org...1700.pdf
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Conservation of angular momentum


If it is already spinning...

This has nothing to do with the rotation of the infalling object. If the object is orbiting the black hole (i.e. if it's spiralling in due to energy loss from the emitted gravity waves of the system) then there is already angular momentum of the *entire* mass. The rotation of the object itself only adds a tiny bit to that (or subtracts a tiny bit from it if it rotates retrograde).

The only case where you would not have any angular momentum is if the object was non-rotating and making a total bee-line towards the black hole...which is an exceedingly unlikely setup.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
Jones says: "it is gravity that is causing the observed orbital motions of stars at the galactic centre. No other explanation works. At least none that I have ever seen"

electromagnetic stresses on galaxy rotation curves

https://arxiv.org...08.09514



Non-peer reviewed nonsense. Let me know when and where they get it published.


I would also note that this paper has been cited three times. Each of them in non-peer reviewed papers, and all of them co-authored by the crank Florentin Smaradanche. He was one of the founders of the crank journal 'Progress in Physics'. That is the journal that Don Scott published some of his ridiculous woo in, as linked by cantthink. It is essentially a journal by cranks, for cranks.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Jones says: "it is gravity that is causing the observed orbital motions of stars at the galactic centre. No other explanation works. At least none that I have ever seen"

electromagnetic stresses on galaxy rotation curves

https://arxiv.org...08.09514



Non-peer reviewed nonsense. Let me know when and where they get it published.


And I don't think this paper has has any impact on scientific thinking. And it looks like OCC didn't even read it. As the authors say;

For slowly evolving stars like our sun, the centripetal force has to be provided by gravity (including
possible effects of dark matter).


Section 5.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
The counter rotation of stars is an even tougher problem, one which is explained by the Birkeland currents.
https://youtu.be/N1P_vSCYG-A

And amusingly, all jonesdumb has is a string of logical fallacies to "prove" he is correct. If it is so wrong jonesdumb why resort to childish traits such as that?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
And amusingly, all jonesdumb has is a string of logical fallacies to "prove" he is correct. If it is so wrong jonesdumb why resort to childish traits such as that?


Lol. No, what I have is a shed load of science and scientific papers, based on measurement and observation to say I'm right. You have a crackpot youtube video. Nobody believes your woo, other than a bunch of batsh1t crazy neo-Velikovskian loons.

hat1208
2.3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@antialias_physorg

The only case where you would not have any angular momentum is if the object was non-rotating and making a total bee-line towards the black hole...which is an exceedingly unlikely setup.

Isn't that what they are citing in the article?

This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Neutron stars and their accretion disks

The theory that in falling equidistant mass on this blackhole can result in a non spinning star is not born out in stars born in dust clouds, even though gravity is equally pulling in mass, it always results in a spinning star with spin-axis

Neutron stars also pull in mass while retaining their spin-axis, as observational data having revealed neutron star accretion disks, showing that neutron stars being almost gravitational powerful as a BH, the incoming matter still spirally orbits showing that as the neutron star shrinks to a BH, it retains its accretion disk and as the gravitational force f=Gm/r* the gravitational force remains the same for the incoming matter which continues to spirally orbitaly round the existing accretion disk, as all that has changed is the neutron star now occupies a smaller diameter star.

All in all the existing Neutron stars and their accretion disks are at odds with anon spinning neutron star formed BH.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Lol. No, what I have is a shed load of science and scientific papers, based on measurement and observation to say I'm right. You have a crackpot youtube video. Nobody believes your woo, other than a bunch of batsh1t crazy neo-Velikovskian loons.

jonesdumb responds by doubling down with more name calling and logical fallacies. I'd swear if I didn't know he was so old and close to death that he was actually an 8-year-old child.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
jonesdumb responds by doubling down with more name calling and logical fallacies.


Sorry, woo boy? What logical fallacies? And where is *your* evidence? A bloody youtube pile of fail.
Do you not understand why nobody takes you loons seriously?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
And yet again, he triples down on the name calling and logical fallacy. For such an old mind at least we know he has the mentality of a child.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
And yet again, he triples down on the name calling and logical fallacy.


And I asked you; what logical fallacies? Answer, instead of avoiding.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Ad hominem attacks, try discussing the proposed mechanisms. Explain why you claim they are "impossible". Try to explain something in your own words. Just give it a shot without the childish banter.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
try discussing the proposed mechanisms. Explain why you claim they are "impossible". Try to explain something in your own words.


This crap has been discussed to death on various fora, and nobody who is remotely scientifically literate believes it. If they want this woo to be taken seriously, then it will appear in the scientific literature, with the relevant evidence and equations. Until then, it is nothing more than pseudoscientific fluff.

cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
This crap has been discussed to death on various fora,

From positions of willful ignorance, such as your own. You don't even understand the basics but can off-handedly cast it aside regardless of new data which agrees with it. I already recommended you get a clue but still remain willfully ignorant.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
This crap has been discussed to death on various fora,

From positions of willful ignorance, such as your own. You don't even understand the basics but can off-handedly cast it aside regardless of new data which agrees with it. I already recommended you get a clue but still remain willfully ignorant.


No, I dismiss it due to a total lack of a viable mechanism, and a total lack of observational evidence. If it had either of those two things, it would be a scientific hypothesis that was in the relevant scientific literature. To all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.
hat1208
2.3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

This crap has been discussed to death on various fora, and nobody who is remotely scientifically literate believes it. If they want this woo to be taken seriously, then it will appear in the scientific literature, with the relevant evidence and equations. Until then, it is nothing more than pseudoscientific fluff.

I like these responses much better than the name calling rants. I think you message gets lost on some as soon as they see the name calling and it is so much beneath you. Also I think it is harming you much more than it is harming them. Thanks for your attention to these matters of science and your passion towards the truth, remember Feynman said, "It is okay to say, "I don't know", ".
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Explain why you claim they are "impossible"


They aren't seen. There is no suggestion of what the e.m.f. is. The whole shebang is based on Peratt's 'looks like a bunny' model from 30 years ago. He did some stuff in a lab, and the result looked vaguely like a spiral galaxy. And then he lost his marbles and wrote a paper, and published it in his own engineering journal. Even he hasn't bothered with it in ~ 2 decades. All the data from COBE, WMAP and Planck fail to show his ginormous currents. His model, and Scott's woo, give no indication how stars are moving at the same rate as neutral gas and plasma. They explain precisely nothing, and have no evidence. Ergo, they are not even hypotheses.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
I like these responses much better than the name calling rants.


Believe me, when you've been dealing with these fruitloops for a few years, you might end up the same way :) Pointless discussing science half the time, as they don't understand it, or claim that the people doing the science are ignorant, or the data has been faked, etc, etc. They can never be wrong!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
This crap has been discussed to death on various fora,

From positions of willful ignorance, such as your own. You don't even understand the basics but can off-handedly cast it aside regardless of new data which agrees with it. I already recommended you get a clue but still remain willfully ignorant.


Sorry? Which one of us believes that Saturn used to be a brown dwarf, and Earth used to orbit it? And that Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter a few years back? Not me. Only somebody very ignorant and clueless could believe that junk.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
This crap has been discussed to death on various fora,

Electric fields exist, electric charges move and impinge themselves upon matter and fields, and those fields respond and alter the mix. The mechanisms are already acknowledged to exist and well studied by scientists, just not astrophysicists. In situ observations of plasmas have shown that the experimentalists (EE) approach to plasma is far more accurate than the theoretical approach, see the Chapman/Birkeland debate of 60+ years as an example. That fact that Birkeland was correct in his approach speaks volumes and changes much fundamentally in astrophysics, astrophysicists just refuse to understand how dramatically wrong their faerie tales really are.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Electric fields exist, electric charges move and impinge themselves upon matter and fields, and those fields respond and alter the mix. The mechanisms are already acknowledged to exist and well studied by scientists, just not astrophysicists.


Wrong. That is why there is now an area of study called plasma astrophysics. It marries the two. Unfortunately, there is nobody in your cult qualified to understand either subject, is there? So, whatever you think is a total irrelevance. As are you.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
I said;
or claim that the people doing the science are ignorant,


And what is cd's next comment?
astrophysicists just refuse to understand how dramatically wrong their faerie tales really are.


This from a follower of a cult whose ranks contain zero plasma physicists or astrophysicists! And are a total irrelevance to science, and have no impact on it. What do they say about empty vessels?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@Hat
I like these responses much better than the name calling rants
the problem is that everyone gets frustrated pointing out the exact same logical fallacy, point, information or falsification of a pseudoscience idiot

the fact that these people can ignore evidence that is repeatedly validated, like reconnection, is beyond insanity - it is the very definition of fanaticism
https://en.wikipe...naticism

in the case of the repeat offenders of pseudoscience bullsh*t here (besides lack of moderation or enforcement per the site "guidelines") there is also a heavy dose of Martyr-Victim Complex
https://en.wikipe..._complex

they are attempting to "play the odds" - perhaps just one interpretation of a single comment they've said or posted validates the whole belief

it's delusional D-K wrapped in fanaticism at it's most severe
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
In situ observations of plasmas have shown that the experimentalists (EE) approach to plasma is far more accurate than the theoretical approach,


EEs don't have the required knowledge of astrophysics. That is why plasma (astro)physics exists as a discipline. And, no, they never get their hands dirty in a lab! Such as this chap:

Radiation from electrostatic double layers in laboratory plasmas
Volwerk, M.
https://www.resea...smas.pdf

But you've already called him an ignoramus.

Or these chaps:

https://www.pppl....nnection

hat1208
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

Believe me, when you've been dealing with these fruitloops for a few years, you might end up the same way :) Pointless discussing science half the time, as they don't understand it, or claim that the people doing the science are ignorant, or the data has been faked, etc, etc. They can never be wrong!

I am with you there I have been coming to phys.org for about 8 years just reading and trying to learn from the respondents and the articles throughout the several Science X sites. And the anti-Semites and anti-science climate deniers, which some of the time are the same people, seem to be the only ones who can't be wrong or reasoned with. And they do it with a religious zeal, which is not lost on me. I understand the frustration but I also understand that most of the time they are just pulling your chain. Thanks again to all those who try to enlighten through science. You know who you are.
hat1208
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@Captain Stumpy

the problem is that everyone gets frustrated pointing out the exact same logical fallacy, point, information or falsification of a pseudoscience idiot

You on the other hand... don't change anything. You have a polished, professional approach to your use of words that I hope continues for a long while. Must be the English in jonesdave that makes me think it is beneath him. Thanks again to you and all your ilk.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
For anybody interested, here is some discussion of the 'paper' from Don Scott that cantthink was linking. Starts at post 135.

http://www.intern...universe

It was also torn to shreds here:

https://www.chris...72402122
hat1208
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

Is that the same Reality Check commenting on the Don Scott paper you linked. Also is Don Scott the one who said that GPS doesn't work the way scientist think?

Thanks
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

Is that the same Reality Check commenting on the Don Scott paper you linked. Also is Don Scott the one who said that GPS doesn't work the way scientist think?

Thanks


It's a different RC than the one who posts on here! I don't think they have much in common! I'm not sure about Scott's views on GPS, but given the strange stuff he does believe, then it wouldn't surprise me.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
Oh hat1208, The only articles that get much play here are QUESTIONABLE science, science that is still not settled.
i.e.
Dark matter & climate change.

Of course there's a constant feud between Jones and EU cantdrive85 on plasma and EU chit.

Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
"Also is Don Scott the one who said that GPS doesn't work the way scientist think?"

No programmer, embedded or applications, does relativity calculations to make signals connect. When I hear people say relativity is involved (as if you have to know relativity) in GPS, I know they don't know chit about technology.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
The statement is self explanatory or turn into a fruit-loop
try discussing the proposed mechanisms. Explain why you claim they are "impossible". Try to explain
something in your own words.

This crap has been discussed to death on various fora, and nobody who is remotely scientifically literate believes it. If they want this woo to be taken seriously, then it will appear in the scientific literature, with the relevant evidence and equations. Until then, it is nothing more than pseudoscientific fluff.

Has been discussed to death, is self explanatory JD, Stumps has also noticed this excess, pointing out we're all turning into fruit-loops JD, as CD is talking to him self.
In short take Stumps and Hats advice JD, and leave him to talk to himself as Stumps describes, we're turning into fruit-loops
hat1208
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@Old_C_Code

I think you will here from a lot of people that do program GPS and yes they do use relativity. And this is because of the speed of light with reference to the timing of the satellites. You can't know where you are on the ground by something 12,000 miles in the sky. EM fields are fast but they're not that fast. And thanks for bringing me up to speed on the site.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2018
emptyhat1208 says: "I think you will here from a lot of people that do program GPS and yes they do use relativity."

What, are you an 8 year old? lol

They do not you dope!!!
hat1208
1.9 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

I have read this link
https://www.pppl....nnection
a couple of times and I can't decide whether you're serious or sarcastic because the first paragraph references Rick Perry the former governor of Texas.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2018
How would they use relativity in any calculation? I'ts a nominal effect that would be tuned out with all the other real noisy errors in the systems calibration.
hat1208
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@Old_C_Code

Just have to through that, "you dope" in there don't you. All I did was point out my understanding of how GPS works. F_cktard
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
"All I did was point out my understanding of how GPS works."

You didn't point anything out really.
You obviously don't know how GPS works then, if you think there's some kind of relativity calculations involved. ... Cucktard
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2018
Total irrelevance. I keep explaining to you that cantthink denies the existence of a BH. He wants to replace it with a plasmoid. You obviously can't read very well, as this is nothing whatsoever to do with the stellar orbits around the BH. It is about a plasmoid orbiting a BH. They can have no effect on stellar orbits. Why don't you read the paper?

https://arxiv.org...1700.pdf

https://www.resea...82666008
says jones

You seem to have this strange thought that I, too don't believe that Black Holes exist only because CD85 rejects BHs. IF a BH exists in that location, then its gravitational pull should be able to circumvent the electromagnetic strength of the Plasmoid that surrounds the BH and still attract the Stars in their orbits toward the BH through the EM.
You claim that Gravity is strong enough to pull Matter into a BH, but EM isn't
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
One of Jones' links was from christiannation dot something, no thanks.
hat1208
2 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@Old_C_cksucker
GPS satellites travel at approximately 8,700 mph (14,000 km/h) with respect to Earth. This means time runs 7,200 nanoseconds per day slower for a satellite relative to us on Earth as described by Special Relativity.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
emptyhat1208 says: "I think you will here from a lot of people that do program GPS and yes they do use relativity."

What, are you an 8 year old? lol

They do not you dope!!!


Oh yes they do!

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.


https://www.gps.g...200D.pdf
Section 3.3.1.1.

And Section 20.3.3.3.3.

The algorithms defined below (a) allow all users to correct the code phase time received from the SV with respect to both SV code phase offset and relativistic effects,


I will try to find another quote I've seen where the engineers diidn't think relativistic effects would be necessary. The first ones fllew with an ability to correct for relativistic effects, if necessary. It was!
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2018
Jones: That code compensates for ANY ERROR, which they'd knew they'd have!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
You claim that Gravity is strong enough to pull Matter into a BH, but EM isn't


It isn't. End of story. What is the charge on a star? What would be the charge required to mimc the stellar orbits at the centre of the galaxy? Where has it been calculated? Nowhere, because nobody is stupid enough to think that a BH is a bloody plasmoid.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Jones: That code compensates for ANY ERROR, which they'd knew they'd have!


Wrong. It does what it says. Corrects for relativistic effects. That is quite plainly stated. As in:

.......are offset to compensate for ****relativistic effects****.


Also;

The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work.


Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Ashby, N.
https://link.spri...r-2003-1

You're entitled to believe what you want - but you're wrong.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
@Hat,

Believe me, when you've been dealing with these fruitloops for a few years, you might end up the same way :)


@Old_C_Code

Just have to through that, "you dope" in there don't you. All I did was point out my understanding of how GPS works. F_cktard


Told you so! :) Not a criticism, by the way.
hat1208
2 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

None taken. Like I said I have been coming here for many a year. Thanks again. On a second note when we speak of black holes it is confirmation of the General Theory and the Special Theory or do I have that wrong?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
One of Jones' links was from christiannation dot something, no thanks.


It was a place where a loon called Michael Mozina, who was a prolific poster on the Dunderdolts forum, chose to post his arse licking promotion of Don Scott's garbage. He used to post on Cosmoquest and ISF, but got banned for being a dick. You'll notice that Scott's nonsense is torn apart by sjastro, who is also a christian. However, being a christian does not automatically make one scientifically illiterate. I posted in that thread, and am an atheist, as were others.
hat1208
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

I like the step by step approach that sjastro took in explaining the equations.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
@jonesdave

None taken. Like I said I have been coming here for many a year. Thanks again. On a second note when we speak of black holes it is confirmation of the General Theory and the Special Theory or do I have that wrong?


GR.
https://www.space...ity.html
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
"All I did was point out my understanding of how GPS works."

You didn't point anything out really.
You obviously don't know how GPS works then, if you think there's some kind of relativity calculations involved. ... Cucktard
says C_C0de

LOL Hey I like that one - a brand new Americanism to add to my collection from jonesdave, Captain Chickenshit, thegrossofortho1923, and a very large portion of this website's demon-inspired residents.

@C_Code
I thought I had read them all, but I see that I may have missed a few. Similar to jonesdave's missing a few braincells, which are the required brain cells to learn brand new science that have yet to be printed in the textbooks.
Do you know how LONG it takes for ANY brand new science discoveries to be included into the most current textbooks? It takes a very long time, and in the meantime, blokes like jones get all barmy if the new stuff isn't there for him to read in paper or hardback.
So carry on.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
The intention of the exercise was not to move to pastures new

When CDs repetitive cyclic OCD world ends, why not move to pastures new as of "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" in the days, months and years to come the realisation will repeat in time - Has been discussed to death, is self explanatory, where as JD, Stumps will remark on the this excess, pointing out we're all turning into fruit-loops yet again JD
.
Where yet again this repetitive cyclic OCD world ends..

The intention of this exercise was not to move to pastures new, but to break free from this cyclic fruit loop, as Stumps with his crystal ball can fore see fruit-loops galore if we do not break this OCD cycle!
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
Do you know how LONG it takes for ANY brand new science discoveries to be included into the most current textbooks? It takes a very long time, and in the meantime, blokes like jones get all barmy if the new stuff isn't there for him to read in paper or hardback.
So carry on.


Sorry? I get email updates from A & A, and regularly check the forthcoming section of MNRAS. Not to mention scouring the latest editions of ApJ, and a few other publications. And I am able to access most of that content. What are you reading, by the way?

Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects,"

Accounting for ANY effects more accurate!!! springer .com ? ugh...

Sorry egg, can't help.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
One of Jones' links was from christiannation dot something, no thanks.
says C_Code

I cannot blame you one iota. Earthly man-made religions are a pox that has, in most cases, come to benefit the perverse ideals of those who have perfected the inclusion of corrupt inclinations such as homosexuality, anti-humanity programs, a love for Socialism/totalitarianism, and a hatred for true family values.
The proof is recorded in print and in the media, including radio. Stay firm in your values, Code.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2018
"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects,"

Accounting for ANY effects more accurate!!! springer .com ? ugh...


Sorry, what is your problem with Springer? They just publish articles. The original is in Living Reviews in Relativity. Open access, and an impact factor of >23!
So, whatever you want to claim about GPS is wrong. As shown. Just admit you were wrong, apologise to @hat1208, and we can all move on.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that.."

It's a CONSTANT ERROR, they make it sound like they're tracking missiles.

Jones, it's a constant error, though I do apologize to hat1208, I really thought he was a kid till his/her 7200 nS post.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
The classic symptoms of OCD

Welcome to The 5 Star Fruit Club, a repetitive cyclic club where is members live a circular life continually washing their hands as when the water splashs, wash their hands again or the same in repetitive arguments are the same as repetitive hand washing, are classic Obsessive Compulsive Disorder symptoms (OCD)
hat1208
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@OCC

Here is a link to the United States Air Force algorithm for GPS. If you read this you will see that they are tracking missiles.
hat1208
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@OCC

Forgot the link:

http://www.dtic.m...1521.pdf

Did I mention I'm new here.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2018
It's a CONSTANT ERROR, they make it sound like they're tracking missiles.


No, it is a needed adjustmejnt to account for GR and SR. I'm not sure what you mean by 'constant error'. They tried using these thing without accounting for relatvistic effects, and they were way out. I'll have to find the paper.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
The errors would be calibrated out like all errors!!! Those links are amazing BS!!!!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@Old_C_cksucker
GPS satellites travel at approximately 8,700 mph (14,000 km/h) with respect to Earth. This means time runs 7,200 nanoseconds per day slower for a satellite relative to us on Earth as described by Special Relativity.
says shat1208

Nice language. Did your Mum teach you that one?

Time itself neither runs faster nor slower. It isn't Time that affects the clocks, but only the gravitational pull of the Earth's surface that affects the MECHANISM of a clock. Anything that has Mass can be affected by Gravity. The closer to the Earth's surface, the bigger effect Gravity has on the mechanism of a clock. The farther the mechanism is from Earth, there is less of an influence by Gravity on the mechanism. Thus, the mechanical or atomic clock runs faster or slower, depending on the altitude. The term "Spacetime" is a ridiculous non sequitur in math equations.
Do try to remember, eh?
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
The GR SR effects are a constant error, i.e. the satellite is at the same height and speed. So it's amazing desk jockeys write stuff like dtic .mil link.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
OCD medical evidential symptoms in the journals

As Stumps correctly describes, as repetitive arguments are turning their practitioners into fruit-loops, or in other words OCD sufferers - The need to create reasons to repetitively continually discuss the same argument repetitively over and over and over and over again while every has to sit there not commenting in case they get sworn at... JD these are classic OCD symptoms as out the depressive cycle you can read the medical evidential symptoms in the journals on this subject JD.
hat1208
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@Supreme_Entity_ofthe_Universe

Yes got Einstein is wrong. And you are right. I've written that down. THANKS Seig Heli
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
@Old_C_cksucker
GPS satellites travel at approximately 8,700 mph (14,000 km/h) with respect to Earth. This means time runs 7,200 nanoseconds per day slower for a satellite relative to us on Earth as described by Special Relativity.
says shat1208

Nice language. Did your Mum teach you that one?

Time itself neither runs faster nor slower. It isn't Time that affects the clocks, but only the gravitational pull of the Earth's surface that affects the MECHANISM of a clock. Anything that has Mass can be affected by Gravity. The closer to the Earth's surface, the bigger effect Gravity has on the mechanism of a clock. The farther the mechanism is from Earth, there is less of an influence by Gravity on the mechanism. Thus, the mechanical or atomic clock runs faster or slower, depending on the altitude. The term "Spacetime" is a ridiculous non sequitur in math equations.


And what would you know? I thought you were only here to learn. Not learned much, eh?
Old_C_Code
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
gran: lol, okay, I'm done.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
The GR SR effects are a constant error, i.e. the satellite is at the same height and speed. So it's amazing desk jockeys write stuff like dtic .mil link.


Sorry? Who is writing this?
Neil Ashby, for one.
https://en.wikipe...il_Ashby

On the other hand, we have you. What is your claim to fame? I think I'll go with what Ashby and the U.S. Navy are saying, rather than an anonymous poster on a comments section. Of course, you could always write up your conjecture, even though it has already been shown to be wrong. Trivially.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
You claim that Gravity is strong enough to pull Matter into a BH, but EM isn't


It isn't. End of story. What is the charge on a star? What would be the charge required to mimc the stellar orbits at the centre of the galaxy? Where has it been calculated? Nowhere, because nobody is stupid enough to think that a BH is a bloody plasmoid.
says jones

Nobody ever said that a BH is a bloody Plasmoid - that only lives in YOUR deranged mind.

The Plasmoid in the form of a Torus SURROUNDS the BH, and is not influenced by the BH. However, it is as plain as the nose in your face, that IF there is, indeed, a BH present in that location, the gravitational pull from the BH should be strong enough to transcend the EM's influence of the Plasmoid, so that the Star Matter outside of the Plasmoid could cross its influence on their way to the BH.
Comprende?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
JD these are classic OCD symptoms as out the depressive cycle you can read the medical evidential symptoms in the journals on this subject JD.


Granville? Shut up, yes? I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't. These are not my opinions, they are accepted, proven science. If anyone wants to overturn said science, they are going to need to do better than commenting on here.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018

Nobody ever said that a BH is a bloody Plasmoid - that only lives in YOUR deranged mind.


Yes, I'll think you'll find that cantthink did. He doesn't believe in BHs.

The Plasmoid in the form of a Torus SURROUNDS the BH, and is not influenced by the BH.


Really? Where is this written?

Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
WTF are you talking about Jones? It's a simple GR SR error, the satellite is at the SAME HEIGHT AND SPEED, none of your links really make much sense.

"Sorry? Who is writing this?
Neil Ashby, for one.
https:/ /en. wikipe...il_Ashby"
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
A classic OCD strategy
Hat1208> This crap has been discussed to death on various forna.

Because the atomic clock is being discussed repetitively while carefully ignoring gravitations effect on the transitioning electrons - A classic OCD strategy, because that takes the reason away to repetitively discuss the time dilation - These are OCDs techniques sufferers devise to give them that warm glowing feeling they are winning the argument, which they nurture in pursuit of that warm glow which drives their repetitive arguments!
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
chose to post his arse licking promotion of Don Scott's garbage. He used to post on Cosmoquest and ISF, but got banned for being a dick.

LOL, the irony!

And it's real easy to get banned there, just post some real science ILO the dark pseudosciences.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@Supreme_Entity_ofthe_Universe

Yes got Einstein is wrong. And you are right. I've written that down. THANKS Seig Heli

says shat1208

As I'm not German, your Sieg Heil is misplaced.
Even the great and wondrous Einsteinovitz could be wrong some of the time. It is a major requirement of science to prove him wrong - which is falsifiability. If you are against falsifiability, then you are anti-science.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
@Old C code
The only articles that get much play here are QUESTIONABLE science, science that is still not settled.
i.e.
... climate change
that statement implies that Climate Change studies aren't based upon physics, thermodynamics etc, so it would mean that you're aware of overwhelming peer reviewed studies that falsify existing evidence, so I would ask at this point: show where climate change has been falsified

not youtube, watts or some other non-science site: to falsify AGW and Climate Change you would need to falsify a *huge* amount of data
https://scholar.g...Anthropo

this would have to include your falsification of existing physics as well, mind
How would they use relativity in any [GPS] calculation?

http://www.astron...gps.html

https://www.gps.g...200D.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Do you know how LONG it takes for ANY brand new science discoveries to be included into the most current textbooks? It takes a very long time, and in the meantime, blokes like jones get all barmy if the new stuff isn't there for him to read in paper or hardback.
So carry on.


Sorry? I get email updates from A & A, and regularly check the forthcoming section of MNRAS. Not to mention scouring the latest editions of ApJ, and a few other publications. And I am able to access most of that content. What are you reading, by the way?

says jones

I said hardcover TEXTBOOKS, not magazine type publications that are liable to be detracted by publishers. You might also get your science from the National Enquirer, but that's OK too.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Being sworn at – an OCD technique

Granville? Shut up, yes? I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't. These are not my opinions, they are accepted, proven science. If anyone wants to overturn said science, they are going to need to do better than commenting on here.

Classic OCD systems, we have to sit quietly not saying anything in case we get sworn at JD, I have just been sworn at, a classic OCD technique, "I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't" a reson to continually continue till the argument is won which it never can be won, a self full filling OCD technique -
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
The errors would be calibrated out like all errors!!! Those links are amazing BS!!!!


No, you are full of BS, you fraud. These are the people who designed these satellites, and you, a complete numpty, are telling them that they're wrong! Where have you written this crap up?
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
Stumpy: climate change topic is extremely political...
CO2 up by 30% most likely by man, but it's effects are not bad. Typical CO2 levels for Earth's past far exceeded 1000 ppm, we are only at 400 ppm.

.. . and Dark Matter has literally yet to be discovered, albeit a Nobel winner title.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
By the skin of your teeth
Old_C_Code> gran: lol, okay, I'm done.

You've escaped a fate that would make a fruit-loop weep in its jar, Old_C_Code!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
I said hardcover TEXTBOOKS,


Never done a science degree have you? Know what a thesis is? Do you think you get that out of a textbook? You need to reference everything you are writing, and that is generally not from textbooks. It is from peer reviewed literature. Which is the latest available literature. And is in no way comparable to a bloody magazine.
Old_C_Code
2.2 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
"No, you are full of BS, you fraud."

What people? your links didn't show designers notes.

Again, common sense, the GR error is CONSTANT, satellite same height same speed, your BS links are truly BS. You and your links are the fraud Jones.

SAME HEIGHT, SAME SPEED, what fancy calculation needs to be done, done where?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
Classic OCD systems, we have to sit quietly not saying anything in case we get sworn at JD, I have just been sworn at, a classic OCD technique, "I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't" a reson to continually continue till the argument is won which it never can be won, a self full filling OCD technique -


The only one here with OCD is you, you repetitive loon. And there is no argument. Relativistic effects are accounted for in GPS. Fact. No argument to be had. Just a bunch of posers on a comments section, who are way out of their depth, are arguing otherwise, with zero evidence.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't. These are not my opinions, they are accepted, proven science.

Unproven accepted hypotheses is what you mean to say.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
SAME HEIGHT, SAME SPEED, what fancy calculation needs to be done, done where?


Christ, how thick can you be? I linked you to the US navy's technical document on NAVSTAR, you burke. What needs to be calculated? GR, you loon, because the satellites are at high altitude. Just as a clock runs differently at altitude. SR, because the sodding things are moving at a fair clip. Idiot.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't. These are not my opinions, they are accepted, proven science.

Unproven accepted hypotheses is what you mean to say.


Really, dumbo? What theories are unaccepted? Other than your unscientific EU crap, of course.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Anyway, in order to calibrate a GPS system, they'd have to stand at a known x,y,z, then calibrate the satellites using their very basic concept of, get this, adjusting their code, as if they wouldn't have written code to adjust for time periods if not for relativity. Jones you dope.

Seems there would be nothing more accurate than this calibration of a known point.

cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
What theories are unaccepted?

Obviously your biggest issue is the inability to read and comprehend. They are unproven but accepted hypotheses. That does not make them correct because they are popular or have been "voted" as correct.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
"just as a clock runs differently at altitude. SR, because the sodding things are moving at a fair clip. Idiot."

God are you stupid, it's a f**king constant error. The fact they you don't get this tells me you are full of chit Jones.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
"just as a clock runs differently at altitude. SR, because the sodding things are moving at a fair clip. Idiot."

God are you stupid, it's a f**king constant error. The fact they you don't get this tells me you are full of chit Jones.


WTF are you on about, you loon? Relativistic effects are taken account of in GPS. Fact. Will you please link to whatever crap you believe in. I have no intention of believing anything you say. So, show us where GPS satellite/s have been launched without including corrections for GR and SR. No more baseless assertions. Show me the science. I have linked to papers saying that GR and SR are accounted for in GPS data. Now, you show me where it is said that they aren't. If you cant, how about shutting TFU?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
What theories are unaccepted?

Obviously your biggest issue is the inability to read and comprehend. They are unproven but accepted hypotheses. That does not make them correct because they are popular or have been "voted" as correct.


Idiot.. GPS relativity corrections happen. They are proven. Take an atomic clock up a frigging mountain for as few days. See what happens.
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
It's simple logic you dumbazz, you are a poser Jones. and your links are total BS. Not from any engineers who do anything.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
@eggy
Nobody ever said that a BH is a bloody Plasmoid - that only lives in YOUR deranged mind
you mean besides cantdrive, jamal shrair et al from the eu cult?
https://phys.org/...ent.html

it's not like he hasn't made this claim before on PO.. .it's all over the place

.

@Occ
Stumpy: climate change topic is extremely political...
no. the actions needed to help are political. the science simply is
your BS links are truly BS
so... any science you dislike or doesn't fit your narrative is BS?
You and your links are the fraud Jones
so, Ohio state EDU and actual government specifications are BS to you?
why is that?
because you say you have "common sense"?

Common sense would dictate acceptance of the science and refuse to accept unfounded accusations from anonymous posters
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
Stumpy: I was referring to Jones. You've been cordial today.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
@OCC
SAME HEIGHT, SAME SPEED, what fancy calculation needs to be done, done where?
Relativity and the Global Positioning System, Neil Ashby, 2002, Physics Today, May 2002, 41.

see also: http://tycho.usno...8_16.pdf

http://tycho.usno...9_08.pdf

While the primary general relativistic correction is taken care of on-board by the design clock frequency before launch and does not need to be computed by an individual receiver, the special relativistic corrections that require knowledge of the orbital parameters of the specific GPS satellites whose signals are being measured are not. As described in the GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993), applying these corrections is the responsibility of the user's equipment (Section 20.3.3.3.3.1, "User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction")
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
@OCC
Stumpy: I was referring to Jones. You've been cordial today.
I am cordial when anyone wants to talk science with scientific evidence

when someone wishes to ignore validated evidence or makes completely unfounded claims that are directly contradicted by overwhelming evidence, then I pick and choose which tactic to make depending on their responses and history here at PO (or in the thread)

this would include religious posters who have repeatedly denied evolutoin, eu idiots like cantdrive or similar type posters who have presented examples of extreme fanaticism towards their beliefs regardless of evidence

it's all part of the job
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Stumpy: "While the primary general relativistic correction is taken care of on-board by the design clock frequency before launch and does not need to be computed by an individual receiver, the special relativistic corrections that require knowledge of the orbital parameters of the specific GPS satellites whose signals are being measured are not."

Ok, still says nothing about ALL ERRORS ARE CALIBRATED OUT at CALIBRATION, no knowledge of relativity required by adjusting (3) satellite signal periods. And engineers would have added time period calibration adjustments to code regardless of relativity.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
It's simple logic you dumbazz, you are a poser Jones. and your links are total BS. Not from any engineers who do anything.


The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks,


http://www.astron...gps.html

Bit thick, eh OCC? Find me a paper that says they weren't taken into account. Still waiting. Your baseless assertions are..................... baseless.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
no knowledge of relativity required by adjusting....yada, yada, yada


Just show us the papers, woo boy. Your word is worth nothing. Prove it.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
I am cordial when anyone wants to talk science with scientific evidence


And a cordial good evening to you, Capt. :) If you want a scientific discussion on this thread, it may be just you, me and hat1208. The loons have lost it.
Old_C_Code
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
lol, written by a physics professor who wants relativity to mean something.

" about 38 microseconds per day" -- A CONSTANT ERROR, the easiest of adjustments. Let's write a masters thesis on how we are going to handle this error... NOT.

.http://www.astron...gps.html

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
I said hardcover TEXTBOOKS,


Never done a science degree have you? Know what a thesis is? Do you think you get that out of a textbook? You need to reference everything you are writing, and that is generally not from textbooks. It is from peer reviewed literature. Which is the latest available literature. And is in no way comparable to a bloody magazine.
says jones

At University we were encouraged to read textbooks, whether soft or hard cover, not from magazines, periodicals, or any printed materiel of which the publishers/authors/researchers could find disfavour and retract the contents thereof - unless such periodicals were given approval and were deposited at the University library. This is not to say that any of us had never read an unapproved periodical, but it is well known that, in many cases, such printed information may be bogus/fraudulent and inadvisable to be read as fact.

My degrees are none of your concern and I am not interested in yours.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Jones you can't explain why simple "CONSTANT error correction" requires a Phd. Loony stuff, yes, but you believe in dark matter. heh

Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2018
.double hit sorry.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Stumpy: I was referring to Jones. You've been cordial today.
says C_C0de

Beware of Captain Chickenshit's "mild" behavior in this forum, as it is meant to throw you off your guard and to draw you into his sphere of lies, deceit and pompous affectations, and to give the impression that he OWNS or commands this website.

I wonder if he ever found Tennille.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Jones you can't explain why simple "CONSTANT error correction" requires a Phd. Loony stuff, yes, but you believe in dark matter. heh



Sorry? That comment makes zero sense. Answer this; do clocks run at a different speed at altitude? (hint: yes, as proven). Do they run differently when they are moving? (hint: yes, as proven). I think you'll find that the correction is 45 -7 microsecomds = 38 microseconds per day for GPS. Prove me wrong. In the scientific literature. I'm fed up with asking this. Show me the paper, loony tunes, or STFU.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
I don't question 38 uS per day you goof, you are a fraud => 45 -7=38. ??? huh?

All these obscure links too, to handle a simple 38 uS per day error.
Jones you are full of chit. You speak like someone who's never sat on a development bench and created any real electronics products. Full of chit, as the engineers say.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018


Beware of Captain Chickenshit's "mild" behavior in this forum, as it is meant to throw you off your guard and to draw you into his sphere of lies, deceit and pompous affectations, and to give the impression that he OWNS or commands this website.

I wonder if he ever found Tennille.


The Captain is far more scientifically literate than you STUPID-EEJIT-USELESS. He would never have suggested that Voyager was beyond the Oort cloud! At least you have accomplished one of your aims that you stated for coming on here; you now know where the Oort cloud is, and you know where Voyager is. Yes? Lol. That is called learning, which is what you are supposedly here to do. Correct?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2018
I don't question 38 uS per day you goof, you are a fraud => 45 -7=38. ??? huh?

All these obscure links too, to handle a simple 38 uS per day error.
Jones you are full of chit. You speak like someone who's never sat on a development bench and created any real electronics products. Full of chit, as the engineers say.



Huh? Dickweed, that is the correction for GR-SR. WTF are you on about? Don't accept GR? or SR? Dafuq are you on about? Loon.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2018
Jones you don't really do anything, just surf the web, read, a real master debater.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2018
"Do they run differently when they are moving? (hint: yes, as proven)."
Specify what you mean by "moving".

You have failed to mention whether the clock is moving from West to East or vice versa - at altitude also. And local Time Zones are in effect, even at altitude.
Code already mentioned "calibration", which is correct.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Fortunately atomic clocks are so accurate and time dilation so insignificant the difference in time is insignificant, as in any case their constantly corrected from ground based master clocks anyway.

Satellites orbit in an elliptical orbit, their velocity is varying, and the earth's velocity is varying as it orbits its star, as our star obits its galaxy, as the galaxy orbits at velocity in the vacuum.

Without knowing all these velocities as their directional they change from moment to moment it is not possible to make accurate definitive corrections in time accordingly, and that is not including the momentary changes in gravitation!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Jones you don't really do anything, just surf the web, read, a real master debater.


Yes, it is quite evident that all that jones is, is a real masterbater.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
SEU> "Do they run differently when they are moving? (hint: yes, as proven)."
Specify what you mean by "moving".

You have failed to mention whether the clock is moving from West to East or vice versa - at altitude also. And local Time Zones are in effect, even at altitude.
Code already mentioned "calibration", which is correct.

Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2018
The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers, is just insane! Whatever comments of value there are here are buried by all the crap. It's just not worth the time to wade through all the BS.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
I am thinking that jonesdave is an Obsessive-Compulsive Manic-Depressive who can't seem to recall what has been said to him earlier or in another forum. Of course, jones has no sense of humour having come from University of Auckland with a 2 degrees in Astronomy, when Astronomy is not offered as even a minor all by itself that is rewarded by any degrees, without a major in Physics first of all.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers, is just insane! Whatever comments of value there are here are buried by all the crap. It's just not worth the time to wade through all the BS.
says PH

Oh come on, Phyl. We're just having fun here. Get used to it.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
SEU> I am thinking that jonesdave is an Obsessive-Compulsive Manic-Depressive who can't seem to recall what has been said to him earlier or in another forum. Of course, jones has no sense of humour having come from University of Auckland with a 2 degrees in Astronomy, when Astronomy is not offered as even a minor all by itself that is rewarded by any degrees, without a major in Physics first of all.

SEU, if you have ever seen anyone suffering OCD, you will realise how skilled they become in disguising their symptoms as when they mix socially as on a forum is when the conflicts start
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
Phyllis: the useful info here is; GR is a simple constant error in GPS.
Engineers would have noticed a 38 uS per day error in their clocks and adjusted accordingly. No knowledge of relativity was ever required.

In relation to falling black hole percents, you got me. :~/
granville583762
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2018
Phyllis Harmonica> The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers, is just insane! Whatever comments of value there are here are buried by all the crap. It's just not worth the time to wade through all the BS.

You've noticed, at times they appear so normal, normal comments like yours are a shock to the system
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
38micro seconds correction a day to a clock that is accurate to 10billionths of a second
Phyllis: the useful info here is; GR is a simple constant error in GPS.
Engineers would have noticed a 38 uS per day error in their clocks and adjusted accordingly. No knowledge of relativity was ever required.
In relation to falling black hole percents, you got me. :~/

Without knowing our velocity relative to light in the vacuum it is not possible to make accurate corrections in time to a clock that measures time to 10 billionths of a second Old_C_Code, so as the saying goes "get real" everyone is making 38micro seconds correction a day to a clock that is accurate to 10billionths of a second and we are discussion the definition of OCD.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
SEU> I am thinking that jonesdave is an Obsessive-Compulsive Manic-Depressive who can't seem to recall what has been said to him earlier or in another forum. Of course, jones has no sense of humour having come from University of Auckland with a 2 degrees in Astronomy, when Astronomy is not offered as even a minor all by itself that is rewarded by any degrees, without a major in Physics first of all.

SEU, if you have ever seen anyone suffering OCD, you will realise how skilled they become in disguising their symptoms as when they mix socially as on a forum is when the conflicts start
says granville

Yes, they do become quite skillful in hiding their "condition". I see it in several in this website as it becomes apparent after some time, especially in reading their responses to verbal stimuli, even from innocent observations. I suppose that the internet is the perfect venue for those who feel emasculated ordinarily in their offline lives.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
There is a science to OCD
SEU:- the experience firsthand gives you and edge, which comes to another OCD symptom of being the centre of attention which is the cause of JDs swearing, is he's losing control, as control of the situation is another symptom of OCD
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2018
Being sworn at – an OCD technique

Granville? Shut up, yes? I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't. These are not my opinions, they are accepted, proven science. If anyone wants to overturn said science, they are going to need to do better than commenting on here.

Classic OCD systems, we have to sit quietly not saying anything in case we get sworn at JD, I have just been sworn at, a classic OCD technique, "I am quoting actual science. OCC and SEU aren't" a reson to continually continue till the argument is won which it never can be won, a self full filling OCD technique -
says granville

I meant to comment on your observation.
There are those, like jones, who would get decked if he started such arguments in the local pub. Even if amongst honest scientists, he would start a brawl to prove his points if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.
So he brings it here to prove he's right.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
Take him to the pub SEU, and start a conversation on Relativity and the Global Positioning System, your Relative the Global Position in the pub will dramatically change
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
A thought in Time
And the clock we are comparing these 38micro seconds is a clock sitting on a planet moving at a varying 64,000mph in an elliptical orbit whose star is moving 250,000km who's galaxy is moving 600,000km
So whose clock are we keeping our ground based clock in correction Old_C_Code.
Just a thought on those sleepless nights when those 38 micro seconds drag on till morning with no sleep.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2018
@granville
But I find that this poem by Max Ehrmann, "Desiderata", is an amazing soother of hurt feelings. There are 6 stanzas - all relevant. The first two:

"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2018
There are those, like jones, who would get decked if he started such arguments in the local pub. Even if amongst honest scientists, he would start a brawl to prove his points if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.
So he brings it here to prove he's right.]/q]

Sorry, thicko? What newer science says I'm wrong about what? You don't even understand science, you loon.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Sorry, thicko? What newer science says I'm wrong about what? You don't even understand science, you loon.


.......and there are those, like you, who cannot accept reality no matter how hard it is smacking them up alongside of their heads.

You at one time had this ambition to be some kind of scientist. Then reality hit during your first year at the University of Auckland where you enrolled in Anthropology because you discovered early on Calculus was something you'd never be able to deal with.

But only one year in Anthropology? Why did you drop out? OK, we get it, you dropped out so you could pursue a degree is Astronomy? Then when it was exposed no such degree is offered there, your story morphed to "astronomy related" degree. But you still won't tell the chatroom what this "astronomy related" degree from U of A is about.

So far the phony count for what you did at U of A stands at three, but you claim to have two degrees. In what? Spin Doctor?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2018
So far the phony count for what you did at U of A stands at three, but you claim to have two degrees. In what? Spin Doctor?


Sorry? What did you qualify in, and from where? Nothing and nowhere is the answer to that, isn't it Benni? As is obvious from your total inability to understand even basic science and maths. As proven. Correct, thicko?

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
So far the phony count for what you did at U of A stands at three, but you claim to have two degrees. In what? Spin Doctor?


Sorry? What did you qualify in, and from where? Nothing and nowhere is the answer to that, isn't it Benni? As is obvious from your total inability to understand even basic science and maths. As proven. Correct, thicko?


I'm not the one claiming to have taken Differential Equations in a high school algebra course, that's you.

I will frankly admit I did not take DEs in high school nor in an algebra course, I took them as the 4th semester of Calculus in Engineering school. But here you are, still inferring you are some kind of genius working within some of the most rigorous disciplines that science has to offer but you can't keep your stories straight on your educational background.

So, for the record, tell us more about your two "astronomy related" degree(s) from U of A? List your courses.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2018
The University of Auckland

Terms of enrolment for international students - Recognition of prior learning
4.Recognition of prior learning
4.1.Recognition of prior academic study can be applied for through Applications and Admissions. There is no charge for this service. Recognition of prior academic study does not apply to inbound exchange students
4.2.Students must submit an official academic transcript and detailed course descriptions of prior study to Applications and Admissions. Applications and Admissions will assess the prior study, the applicant will be informed of the outcome of his/her application
4.3.This process is normally done as part of the original application but an application for the recognition of prior learning can be made at any time
4.4.Students will not be granted credit retrospectively for courses that have already been completed at the University of Auckland https://www.auckl.../en.html

As Stumps so eloquently requests, where's the evidence
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2018
The implication, with no prior learning, The University of Auckland will reject the application of prior study!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2018
The implication, with no prior learning, The University of Auckland will reject the application of prior study!

The student, consequently, will be refused admission to The University of Auckland.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers

Yah. It's a shame the comment sactions are no longer moderated
I remember a time when you'd get told off for leaving a comment that did not specifically address the article (never mind about any invective) - and when people trying to reregister after a ban for crankery or sockpuppetting were kicked in a matter of days.

Alas, those times are gone and the comment sections are just the pits nowadays.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2018
I will frankly admit I did not take DEs in high school nor in an algebra course, I took them as the 4th semester of Calculus in Engineering school.


Which is an outright lie, isn't it Benni? You never did any tertiary education. You can't even do basic maths. As shown. And your knowledge of physics is non-existent. As shown.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
"All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers"

The fringers, that explains it.

"Yah. It's a shame the comment sactions are no longer moderated"
They had no one left to comment, you sissy.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
@A_P
Yah. It's a shame the comment sactions are no longer moderated
what's even more shameful is that the site has been given (freely) a method to not only moderate, but to do it for minimal programming changes (chainging permissions to existing accounts) as well as on a free, voluntary basis

They were even provided a list of account names (only) who were known to be educated in fields, like Q-star, furlong, etc

so, @A_P - have they inquired if you were willing to moderate certain topics?

I am going to go out on a limb and say: No, they haven't asked you

.

they were given a solution for free
it would cost them less than a single slow day's profits
it would prevent trolls, spamming and augment the admin
AND it had a built in ability to moderate the moderators and prevent abuse of power

but they ignored it for the trolls

and that is the real shame
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
@oldC
The fringers, that explains it
it actually does partially explain the problem

why do people comment in these sections at all?
1- to share science
2- to share their belief (pseudoscience, religion, etc)
3- attention
4- social augmentation
5- study
6- financial gain

It can be any one or multiple choices of the above

and for those who choose to be social here while sharing a passion, be it science or other, then the challenge of refutation in any form can be construed as marked aggression against them, personally

Given the site refusal to abide by it's own stated rules (now "guidelines") then it adds frustration to the situation and allows proliferation of fringe or irrational discourse, which then directly affects all rational discourse

until application of moderation, this will continue to degrade with the loss of most rational educated posters (already being demonstrated)

that leaves the irrational (fringe) and those who study them, mostly
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
and prevent anyone commenting (goofball removed)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2018
Old C
and prevent anyone commenting
not really
when the site actually had moderation there were plenty of conversations, both public and private (as we still had the ability to PM others)

It was just constrained to what could be proven by evidence
and it allowed for fringe beliefs if they were supported...

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
I am going to go out on a limb and say: No, they haven't asked you

No they didn't, but i wouldn't have done it anyways.
The only way (I think) to moderate a forum/comment section well is if the moderator doesn't post. Otherwise there'll always be the accusation of abusing moderator powers to silence opposition (or somesuch).

6- financial gain

Credit where credit is due: Reporting spam/ad-links still does result in removal of the post most of the time.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2018
@A_P
The only way (I think) to moderate a forum/comment section well is if the moderator doesn't post. Otherwise there'll always be the accusation of abusing moderator powers to silence opposition
I completely agree

Of course, that only limits you to commenting on other topics with other moderation, not on your own moderated section

I actually put that in the recommendation to PO, by the way
Credit where credit is due: Reporting spam/ad-links still does result in removal of the post most of the time
true

except for reg mundy, jvk, cd et al
Old_C_Code
4 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
I'm still amazed that: Jones and hat1208 think a simple 38 uS timing error would require so much engineering as the links they provided is simply bizarre.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
Of course, that only limits you to commenting on other topics with other moderation, not on your own moderated section

Since people mostly don't know that moderators can be restricted that way I'm not sure that would work (or they would resort to blaming 'moderator collusion')...I've seen all this happen on other forums.
Moderating is really hard unless you go all out and just ban with simple reference to forum guidelines without any means of appeal. Otherwise it's a never ending whine-fest of people claiming to be treated unfairly and all sorts of idiotic claims on the lines of "freedom of speech" (which does not apply to internet forums in any way, shape or form)
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
Why are not orbits random as this blackhole
phys.org> The orbit of the gas around the black hole is often assumed to be aligned with the rotation of the black hole, but there is no compelling reason for this to be the case. In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun.

This point of why stars are orbited by by planets in a planer orbit instead of at all angles hemispherically round the sun, and in opposition to one another exactly is as proposed for this blackhole
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
As for example when a stellar dust cloud is collapsing gravity is accelerating the dust to a central point as is was not originally rotational as the dust would have scattered under centrifugal force, so essentially were dealing with a random moving dust cloud that gravity is conglomerating which should result in a non spinning star
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2018
@A_P
Moderating is really hard
true
But there are ways to make it easier, including having a public set of guidelines that people must read and acknowledge before posting and fair application of the rules

that latter is the hardest as some MOD's see reason for leeway in some cases

That is also where a tribunal (or similar) comes in: Moderate the moderators with no set tribunal membership
Make the tribunal dynamic to a random schedule with overlap and a tiebreaker vote

Also allow for input from member posters on specific occasion for feedback and analysis of adjudication

This allows for fair treatment as well as a constant review of all MOD's

So long as there are set "laws" that are invoilable, and rules divided into categories of offense and clear punishment, it can work

no one is being forced to post, and it allows for free speech within reason regulated under specific guidelines that are strictly enforced to all
moderator collusion
LOL
I wonder where?
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
Keeping on Topic

For all those feeling hot behind the ears, please note that that this contest has been going on for years, and years. and years, as some of us are still wet behind the ears, not having experienced these self inflicted variation on a commentary theme, that us newbie's still haven't fathomed out what this mole whacking and accompanying colourful vocabulary is all about, may be some one can enlighten us all as to what it is all about?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
We are all waiting with baited breath as to this mysteries reason for all this mole whacking baiting is all about, is it some initiation ceremony, if so it is long winded and repetitive almost to the point of obsessiveness!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Stumps:- you hold the greatest respect amongst commentaries, having as you are with your exemplary record, and having seen more of these mysteries mole whacking baiting come and go, as an experienced member may be you have over the years elucidated the mysteries reason for this repetitive mole whacking bating and colourful language!
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
Keeping on Topic
Stumps:- you hold the greatest respect amongst commentaries, having as you are with your exemplary record, and having seen more of these mysteries mole whacking baiting come and go, as an experienced member may be you have over the years elucidated the mysteries reason for this repetitive mole whacking bating and colourful language!

If we can take it Stumps, that this mysteries mole whacking baiting has served whatever unfathomable reason it was originally initiated, years, and years, and years ago, everyone can concentrate their efforts where they originate, namely, Keeping on Topic!
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
Keeping on Topic
Stumps:- you hold the greatest respect amongst commentaries, having as you are with your exemplary record, and having seen more of these mysteries mole whacking baiting come and go, as an experienced member may be you have over the years elucidated the mysteries reason for this repetitive mole whacking bating and colourful language!

If we can take it Stumps, that this mysteries mole whacking baiting has served whatever unfathomable reason it was originally initiated, years, and years, and years ago, everyone can concentrate their efforts where they originate, namely, Keeping on Topic!

Stumps:- it is clear, Keeping on Topic is clearly at the fore thought of commentary thought, as has been clearly pointed out, this mysteries mole whacking baiting has been ongoing for years, and years, and years. It is clearly a self moderation problem Stumps, you have probably realised by now left to officialdom weeding, the problem will still remain!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
@gran
you hold the greatest respect amongst commentaries
no need to yank my lariat, I ain't got no cow
as an experienced member may be you have over the years elucidated the mysteries reason for this repetitive mole whacking
see above "fringe" @oldC

also see: http://www.auburn...ion.html

https://en.wikipe...c_method

https://en.wikipe...oscience

https://phys.org/...ies.html

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
@oldC
I'm still amazed that: Jones and hat1208 think a simple 38 uS timing error would require so much engineering as the links they provided is simply bizarre.
page 8, 12-14, all around 30, etc
http://www.nbmg.u...0gps.pdf

mind, that is just "Basics of the GPS Technique: Observation Equations"

see also: https://gssc.esa....itioning

https://gssc.esa....eceivers
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
There are those, like jones, who would get decked if he started such arguments in the local pub. Even if amongst honest scientists, he would start a brawl to prove his points if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.
So he brings it here to prove he's right.]/q]

Sorry, thicko? What newer science says I'm wrong about what? You don't even understand science, you loon.

says jonesdumb

While science experiments are proceeding, there will be no peer-reviews or publishing of papers in quality journals until long after the cessation of experimentation when all that will be stated in such papers have been gone through, revised and refined, until every piece of qualified information is known to have been included in said paper. Scientists can't afford to have any errors in such papers, so that they must be diligent as to everything they wish to express. Otherwise, their work will be deemed unacceptable.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
-contd-
And it is for this reason that scientists, who have understanding of how the system works) will not have their work published and peer-reviewed UNTIL they are satisfied that they have complied with every rule for being published in quality journals.

Which brings me to the question of: Where are the peer-reviewed science papers from jonesdave's own work, experiments, models, etc. that has been published in quality journals? I think that we would ALL like to read what he, as an alleged scientist, has worked on just as hard as the scientists whose names are in the journals and even in physorg articles.
How about it, jones? Got some of your own stuff for us to read?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Which brings me to the question of: Where are the peer-reviewed science papers from jonesdave's own work, experiments, models, etc. that has been published in quality journals? I think that we would ALL like to read what he, as an alleged scientist, has worked on just as hard as the scientists whose names are in the journals and even in physorg articles.
How about it, jones? Got some of your own stuff for us to read?


No, i never said I was a scientist. Why do you cranks always lie? And you still haven't answered my question - where is this newer work that I should be looking at? Just answer the question, and cut the crap.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
Nothing massive goes 30% of the speed of light without a serious impulse. There is only one force that has that kind of power at a distance of light years.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
In that case, since you are not a scientist, what is causing you to role-play as though you were a scientist who has submitted papers to qualified journals, where instead you outright reject suggestions from other posters, rather than allow time to evolve the possibility that those suggestions will become fruitful in the future? Since you are no scientist, researcher, educator, nor anything having to do with science, I can only surmise that you are a car mechanic with a great interest in science discussions so that you may browbeat those whom you believe to know far less than yourself.
Isn't that right?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers, is just insane! Whatever comments of value there are here are buried by all the crap. It's just not worth the time to wade through all the BS.
The best strategy is to use blocking a lot and pick out the ones you don't block. That's all I've found that works.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
Every scientist with whom I am acquainted would never, ever push off anyone's suggestion wrt to any science project without first examining the suggestion and, if warranted, take the suggestion into the lab to see if it could possibly have merit.
If it does not, then he or she will go back to the one whose suggestion it was, and explain to them the reason(s) why it isn't feasible or probable.
This is the kind of behaviour a real scientist will be motivated to do, rather than be rude and behave stupidly.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
In that case, since you are not a scientist, what is causing you to role-play as though you were a scientist who has submitted papers to qualified journals


Bit thick aren't you SEU? I'm not role-playing anything other than somebody who understands far more of the relevant science than idiots like you and Benni. Hell, I only need to have done well at high school physics to see that you people haven't got a clue on the subject. I have never said, nor intimated that I was a working scientist, nor had papers in the scientific literature. Why do you feel the need to keep lying? Some sort of personality disorder?
And you still haven't answered my quesrion - where is this newer work that you know about that I don't? Link/s please.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
This is the kind of behaviour a real scientist will be motivated to do, rather than be rude and behave stupidly.


Nope, a real scientist would tell you and Benni and others that they are talking nonsense. Go to a physics forum if you don't believe me. Nobody is going to test crap that is impossible to start with, and that has not even appeared in the scientific literature.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
I could say the same in your case, jones. A bit thick. aren't you - for someone who is not a career/professional scientist/researcher. You are here to cause trouble and consternation for all science advocates and learners. That is all you are here for. Nothing else. Surely, your job as a mechanic is holding you up from your real desire - that of garbage collector, yes?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
.....where instead you outright reject suggestions from other posters, rather than allow time to evolve the possibility that those suggestions will become fruitful in the future?


Which suggestions? Take them to a physics forum if you don't like me telling people that they are talking crap. Why do you think they post on here in the first place? Because they will never go into print, and are sh!t scared of physics forums. They are jusst deluded fools.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
I could say the same in your case, jones. A bit thick. aren't you - for someone who is not a career/professional scientist/researcher. You are here to cause trouble and consternation for all science advocates and learners. That is all you are here for. Nothing else. Surely, your job as a mechanic is holding you up from your real desire - that of garbage collector, yes?


Listen thicko, are you going to answer the question or not? You are just gish-galloping in order to avoid it, aren't you? What new science should I be looking at?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
Which brings me to the question of: Where are the peer-reviewed science papers from jonesdave's own work, experiments, models, etc. that has been published in quality journals? I think that we would ALL like to read what he, as an alleged scientist, has worked on just as hard as the scientists whose names are in the journals and even in physorg articles.
How about it, jones? Got some of your own stuff for us to read?


No, i never said I was a scientist. Why do you cranks always lie? And you still haven't answered my question - where is this newer work that I should be looking at? Just answer the question, and cut the crap.



Where is WHAT newer work? Enlighten me.

So you say that you received 2 degrees in a course that was "Astronomy-based", and yet your are not an Astronomer/Scientist?
Perhaps you found your life's work in car mechanics instead?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.


Errr, this newer work. I presume you have inside knowledge? Otherwise what are you prattling on about, dummy?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
.....where instead you outright reject suggestions from other posters, rather than allow time to evolve the possibility that those suggestions will become fruitful in the future?


Which suggestions? Take them to a physics forum if you don't like me telling people that they are talking crap. Why do you think they post on here in the first place? Because they will never go into print, and are sh!t scared of physics forums. They are jusst deluded fools.


I regularly visit physics forums under an assumed name, as well as scientists at University, as well as symposiums. I also sit in on lectures that are given by bona-fide scientist/researchers who give talks wrt their research, prior to their having it published in quality journals. They do that in order to get some possibly great input from non-scientists. They also are aware that it is not always possible to think of everything - every possibility or probability. They place a lot of value on new ideas.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.


Errr, this newer work. I presume you have inside knowledge? Otherwise what are you prattling on about, dummy?



Yes, I have inside knowledge. And they trust me to not reveal it to fools such as you.
You are not a scientist. Therefore, you will not be privy to their work until such time as they choose to have it published.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.


Errr, this newer work. I presume you have inside knowledge? Otherwise what are you prattling on about, dummy?



Yes, I have inside knowledge. And they trust me to not reveal it to fools such as you.
You are not a scientist. Therefore, you will not be privy to their work until such time as they choose to have it published.


Hahahahahahahaha. Spoken like a true Dunning-Kruger suffere! Liar.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
.....where instead you outright reject suggestions from other posters, rather than allow time to evolve the possibility that those suggestions will become fruitful in the future?


Which suggestions? Take them to a physics forum if you don't like me telling people that they are talking crap. Why do you think they post on here in the first place? Because they will never go into print, and are sh!t scared of physics forums. They are jusst deluded fools.


I regularly visit physics forums under an assumed name, as well as scientists at University, as well as symposiums. I also sit in on lectures that are given by bona-fide scientist/researchers who give talks wrt their research, prior to their having it published in quality journals.


So, having done all that, how come you are so clueless about science? Not a very good learner, are you? Methinks you lie. Again.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
As I have said many a time, I am here to learn. Reading the articles - I have discerned a number of discrepancies between one article and another wrt the same proposals/projected possibilities. This is normal to science research, where one team may be have found a different track from others. It is only when they reveal each team's findings/research that they could possibly find some closure. It sometimes happens.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
As I have said many a time, I am here to learn.


No, if you wanted to learn, you'd be on a physics forum, asking questions. And reading papers, not press releases. So, unless you've got anything scientific to say, in particular on the topic of this thread, why not give it a rest for a while?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
if those scientists happened to have newer science information that were still not in the public domain.


Errr, this newer work. I presume you have inside knowledge? Otherwise what are you prattling on about, dummy?



Yes, I have inside knowledge. And they trust me to not reveal it to fools such as you.
You are not a scientist. Therefore, you will not be privy to their work until such time as they choose to have it published.


Hahahahahahahaha. Spoken like a true Dunning-Kruger suffere! Liar.


Hahahahahahahaha. Nope. In my line of work, I am checked thoroughly for such mental disparities, and I haven't exhibited any such problems.
But I do know for a fact that it is those who are actually suffering from Dunning-Kruger and other maladies of the brain who regularly accuse other of the same.
So it is YOU, as well as a few others in this site who are known to accuse other posters of such a mental issue.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
LOL I have also been accused of using or being a sock puppet by Captain Chickenshitlips. Not having had any, perhaps I will take the time to create a sock, possibly naming it "Bernie Sanders". What say you to that, jones?

And with that - it is time to take the dog for a walk.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
So, unless you've got anything scientific to say, in particular on the topic of this thread, why not give it a rest for a while?


You said this while looking in a mirror checking your BMI, right? Now you know where most of the missing matter in the Universe is located.

Oh, thought you'd be interested knowing that today I cut down a huge oak tree on my property with one of my chainsaws. It was about 100 feet tall & three feet in diameter. I expect to get about 4 cords of firewood from it. I have three wood splitters to put to work doing the limbing & then splitting, me & those two boys, even the oldest daughter volunteered to take her younger brother's place after he gets tired.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
Ok back to the GPS, I think Jones trying to make GR SR a serious GPS issue, by way of the extremely cherry picked links showing people trying to write masters thesis on the effect of relativity on GPS.

...Shows a simple 38 uS per day error, which is handled with simple code. To say it's any more difficult than a simple addition/subtraction, is truly insane, or an outright deception by Jones to defend silly things said in the mainstream about this subject.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
...Shows a simple 38 uS per day error, which is handled with simple code. To say it's any more difficult than a simple addition/subtraction, is truly insane, or an outright deception by Jones to defend silly things said in the mainstream about this subject.


Huh? The mainstream designed, built and flew these things. They were the ones that had to work out the necessary adjustment for GR and SR. There is a tonne of stuff on it on the web and in the scientific literature. It is proven fact. You, on the other hand have produced nothing other than your ill informed opinion. Waste of space. Go read up on it. You aren't arguing with me, idiot, you are arguing with a proven fact, and the scientists who proved it.

Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
Jones the genius (because he can solve high school physics equations) says: "You aren't arguing with me, idiot, "

You are such a chithead Jones, it's a simple fix, simple logic, same height, same speed, same simple daily clock error, mainstream morons didn't help those GPS engineers you dumbazz.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Jones the genius (because he can solve high school physics equations) says: "You aren't arguing with me, idiot, "

You are such a chithead Jones, it's a simple fix, simple logic, same height, same speed, same simple daily clock error, mainstream morons didn't help those GPS engineers you dumbazz.


WTF are you talking about? Do you believe that GPS satellites have to have their clocks corrected for relativistic effects or not? Yes or no?
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
Besides, it's usually not the mainstream that solves the great problems facing the world. Take Mandelbrot and his Fractal Math, they would laugh at his math as being useless, only good for art. But did you ever wonder why your cell phone antennas disappeared? A sheet inside the phone with fractal cutting throughout it, makes a high bandwidth antenna.

Conclusion: you don't need young mainstream geniuses writing masters thesis to help seasoned EE's make their GPS technology work. Matter traveling 30% c? I have no idea.

Of course they correct for a simple 38 uS per day error. No masters thesis required.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
Non spinning dust cloud to spinning Star
As by definition a loose bound cloud of dust grains, if spinning would disperse not allowing gravity a hold, there are obviously other forces at play which results in a non spinning dust cloud turning into a spinning increasing collective of density of mass into a spinning star, as planets form in the stars spinning accretion disk while the star is growing which prove at some point the cloud starts spinning while piling on the growing star as presumably this blackhole has inherited its neutrons star magnetic field which relies on a spinning star!
The dust cloud must be held by electrical attraction to counteract centrifugal force
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Of course they correct for a simple 38 uS per day error. No masters thesis required.


Yes, and that 38 microseconds is built in to account for relativity. As I have told you all along.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
LOL, no Jones, you showed links indicated it was too advanced a subject for the GPS EE's actually doing the work. And I said it was a way easier a problem than requiring a masters thesis.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
LOL, no Jones, you showed links indicated it was too advanced a subject for the GPS EE's actually doing the work. And I said it was a way easier a problem than requiring a masters thesis.



I asked you a question, you idiot. Why don't youy answer it? For the hard of reading, I'll repeat it, before posting more links to actual science;

Do you believe that GPS satellites have to have their clocks corrected for relativistic effects or not? Yes or no?

None of your uneducated crap about EEs. Just yes, or no.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
Jones says: "Do you believe that GPS satellites have to have their clocks corrected for relativistic effects or not? Yes or no?"

Of course YES you total fraud.

I doubt you know a single practicing EE Jones, fraud.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
Jones says: "Do you believe that GPS satellites have to have their clocks corrected for relativistic effects or not? Yes or no?"

Of course YES you total fraud.

I doubt you know a single practicing EE Jones, fraud.


You really are thick, aren't you? Who said this:

emptyhat1208 says: "I think you will here from a lot of people that do program GPS and yes they do use relativity."

What, are you an 8 year old? lol

They do not you dope!!!


You didn't point anything out really.
You obviously don't know how GPS works then, if you think there's some kind of relativity calculations involved.


So, contradicting yourself, aren't you? I don't think you've got a clue about GPS, or much else, frankly.

45 microseconds for GR - 7 microseconds for SR. That is built in to the satellites.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
If Einsteinovitz had never been born, and/or no one had ever come up with the theories of general relativity and special relativity - are you saying that the differences of 38 ms would never have been known in the satellite age? Are you saying that had it not been for GR and SR, the EE would have no clue as to what were the reasons for the missing seconds? Even without those theories, there is still the known and understood gravitational pull at altitude that affects all kinds of mechanism - at altitude.
The effects of gravity on Mass would have been known, and the theories would not have been necessary to understand that adjustments have to be made to mechanisms, whether at Earth's surface or at any altitude wrt global rotation.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
If Einsteinovitz had never been born, and/or no one had ever come up with the theories of general relativity and special relativity - are you saying that the differences of 38 ms would never have been known in the satellite age? Are you saying that had it not been for GR and SR, the EE would have no clue as to what were the reasons for the missing seconds? Even without those theories, there is still the known and understood gravitational pull at altitude that affects all kinds of mechanism - at altitude.
The effects of gravity on Mass would have been known, and the theories would not have been necessary to understand that adjustments have to be made to mechanisms, whether at Earth's surface or at any altitude wrt global rotation.


If they'd have flown without correction for relativity, they wouldn't work. We've known for definite since the Hafele-Keating experiment that they would have to be included;

https://en.wikipe...periment

Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
More cherry picked BS results from Jones, as if engineers didn't have software to correct anything and everything, and had to listen to dopes in a library to do so. A slower clock due to relativity dilation would be about the first thing any GPS EE would have thought of, you BS artist Jones.

Use relativity? lol, they don't you dope, the add and subtract error values.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
Of course adjustments would have to be included, but only due to trial and error would they finally understand that the time has to be adjusted manually or mechanically. But it isn't necessarily the SR and GR theories that cause the times to be adjusted. It is the gravitational pull that is doing all the work, and it is only that and its effects on mechanisms whether in the air or on the ground - depending on altitude, that it would be found out what has to be done to keep time.
Theories are only handy for reference, but it is the actual work where it is found that there are certain "steps" to be taken to prevent failure.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2018
More cherry picked BS results from Jones, as if engineers didn't have software to correct anything and everything, and had to listen to dopes in a library to do so. A slower clock due to relativity dilation would be about the first thing any GPS EE would have thought of, you BS artist Jones.

Use relativity? lol, they don't you dope, the add and subtract error values


Wrong. As proven by the people that flew the damn things. Or can't you read, idiot?

You denied that relativity corrections were used, then you said they were. Make your stupid mind up, dummy.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
For the hard of reading:

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. 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 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day.


http://www.leapse...vity.htm

http://www.leapse...TS-2.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
Your thinking is that without such theories as GR and SR, nothing would ever have been discovered by science/engineering. The science is what it is, and is not negotiable. If Newton's apple hadn't fallen on his head, apples would still have fallen to the ground. That is reality. No one escapes reality. The trial and error method has always been observable science. You may not think of it as science, but it works.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
The science is what it is, and is not negotiable. If Newton's apple hadn't fallen on his head, apples would still have fallen to the ground. That is reality. No one escapes reality. The trial and error method has always been observable science. You may not think of it as science, but it works.


What are you on about? They didn't need trial and error. They knew beforehand, from GR and SR what corrections they would need to make. What is your point?
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
"Wrong. As proven by the people that flew the damn things. Or can't you read, idiot?"

You're the fool that thinks GPS EE's didn't think of relativity.

God you are stupid, it's a simple error, taken care of by simple math. You give cherry picked insane links.

It must haves to do with your neurosis about all EE's must believe in EU.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
For the hard of reading:

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. 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 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day.


http://www.leapse...vity.htm


So, they still did the "trial and error" method in spite of knowing the theories of GR and SR. The Doubting
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
God you are stupid, it's a simple error, taken care of by simple math. You give cherry picked insane links.


No you thick fool,m those links are from the very people who launched the damn things. You find me a link that says any different. You are the prat that claimed relativity wasn't taken into account, and now you're backtracking.Go find your link, bozo.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
-contd-
The Doubting Thomases who were unsure that the theories actually held the answers. But in any case, they could have made the adjustments from their general knowledge of the behaviour of gravity on all kinds of Mass - at altitude. That knowledge had already been in place even before Einsteinovitz ever existed.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
@oldC
mainstream morons didn't help those GPS engineers you dumbazz

Of course they correct for a simple 38 uS per day error. No masters thesis required.
erm, you missed a few links about how GPS works:
http://www.nbmg.u...0gps.pdf

https://gssc.esa....itioning

https://gssc.esa....eceivers
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2018
Airplanes had been flying before SR and GR - at altitude - globally. The only difference is that GPS is an enabler. To know where you are going and where you have been - amongst other advantages.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
Airplanes had been flying before SR and GR - at altitude - globally.


No, SR and GR have always existed. They just weren't known about until Einstein. The difference in time for an aircraft is tiny, and makes no difference to its operation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
It is the realities that always existed, not the theories themselves:

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
Airplanes had been flying before SR and GR - at altitude - globally.


No, SR and GR have always existed. They just weren't known about until Einstein. The difference in time for an aircraft is tiny, and makes no difference to its operation.


Bollocks to that. Perhaps the time values of the short flights of the Wright Brothers were tiny, but later aircraft that encircled the globe depended on REAL time, which made a HUGE difference, especially when flying East to West.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
When flying East to West at 35,000 feet altitude, the clocks lose time depending on distance. Those airplanes are equipped with GPS, while the older planes had no such advantage. Their clocks were also not nuclear powered. But they understood time values and global positioning theory, from what I have been told.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
Bollocks to that. Perhaps the time values of the short flights of the Wright Brothers were tiny, but later aircraft that encircled the globe depended on REAL time, which made a HUGE difference, especially when flying East to West.


Nope. Tiny. No difference whatsoever to an aircraft. Did you not read the link I provided to the Hafele-Keating experiment? It gives the numbers.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
Whether it is an aircraft at 35K ft. or a satellite in LEO, the time values are the same, depending on altitude, direction and distance. If a huge Solar flare knocked out all the electronics everywhere and there were airplanes still in flight, do you really think that GPS would be available to keep the flight on track? No it would not. The pilot would have to get out his calculator and t-square to make the correct calculations to get the airplane safely on the ground.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
Whether it is an aircraft at 35K ft. or a satellite in LEO, the time values are the same, depending on altitude, direction and distance.


Wrong. Read the link on the Hafele-Keating experiment. What are the respective numbers?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2018
The pilot would have to get out his calculator and t-square to make the correct calculations to get the airplane safely on the ground.


Don't be ridiculous. We were flying planes around the world without GPS for years. Do you think they were navigating by the stars?

https://www.fligh...avigate/

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
I copied the site's URL and will read the remainder when I have the time.. I have to admit it is all very interesting. But this technology is relatively new and still doesn't explain how the time values are different from that of aircraft at altitude, direction and distance. Even accounting for speed of the satellites in LEO, both airplanes and satellites lose time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
The pilot would have to get out his calculator and t-square to make the correct calculations to get the airplane safely on the ground.


Don't be ridiculous. We were flying planes around the world without GPS for years. Do you think they were navigating by the stars?

https://www.fligh...avigate/



Perhaps you don't recall that I had been referring to a huge solar flare from the Sun knocking out all GPS and flight instruments on airplanes so that airplanes in the air would be practically flying blind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018
Almost ALL airplanes are now equipped with GPS and have little to do with the old way of flight patterns, etc.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2018

At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).

Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature.

"This system was intended primarily for navigation by military users having access to encrypted satellite transmissions which are not available to civilian users. Uncertainty of position determination in real time by using the Precise Positioning code is now about 2.4 meters. Averaging over time and over many satellites reduces this uncertainty to the point where some users are currently interested in modeling many effects down to the millimeter level. Even without this impetus, the GPS provides a rich source of (..)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2018
So, GPS systems still leave much to be desired. Meaning that it is not a fool proof system, and can be knocked out of commission by ........ ?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPSNTS-2 SATELLITE
James A. Buisson, et al. (1978)

NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977into a near 12- hour circular orbit. Precise frequencyand timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2018
Well, time to go. Have a good one.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
So, GPS systems still leave much to be desired. Meaning that it is not a fool proof system, and can be knocked out of commission by ........ ?


If you say so. You're the expert. Apparently.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Motion Induced Transitional Frequency
SEU> If Einsteinovitz had never been born, and/or no one had ever come up with the theories of general relativity and special relativity.

The transitioning electron of 9.1x10-31kg requires KE to shift orbital's as E is dependent on v*+ the motion of satellites velocity requires the electron to vary its KE input, in other words the transitional electron is accelerating effecting the time the transitional electron is taking to complete its task.
When these are translated in to the 10billion Hz, it effects the time to reach the requisite standard 10billion Hz second, all because an electron is accelerating, because the increased external velocity as the electron has to reach this higher velocity with a constant electrical force of 1.6x10-19coloumbs

It can be obviously seen increased satellitic velocity with constant electron force each transition takes longer to complete as seen in the hotly contested 38micro-seconds
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Atomic Electron Transition in Motion Induced Transitional Frequency

Wikipedia:- Atomic electron transition is a change of an electron from one energy level to another within an atom It appears discontinuous as the electron "jumps" from one energy level to another in a few nanoseconds or less. It is also known as atomic transition, quantum jump, or quantum leap.
Electron transitions cause emission or absorption of electromagnetic radiation in quantized units called photons. Their statistics are Poissonian; the time between jumps is exponentially distributed. The damping time constant (which ranges from nanoseconds to a few seconds) relates to the natural, pressure, and field broadening of spectral lines. The larger energy separation of the states between which the electron jumps, the shorter the wavelength of the photon emitted. The observability of quantum jumps was predicted by Hans Dehmelt in 1975, and they were first observed using trapped ions of mercury at NIST in 1986.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
One Quantum Leap in Time

The electron "jumps" from one energy level to another in a few nanoseconds or less. It is also known as atomic transition, quantum jump, or quantum leap.
The electron in transition varies it distance from its atomic nuclei gaining or losing energy emitting or gaining photons in the process of transitioning

The electron has inertial mass, its quota of gravitation and is subject to Sir Isaac's Newton's three laws of motion where as its force is dependant on its constant electric charge 1.6x10-19coloumbs directly effecting the acceleration and there fore the time to emit the transtitional photon which consequently is translated in frequency to be read of in terms of how ever long the electron takes to reach the standard requisite 10billion Hz required for one second, as is quantified in "One Quantum Leap in Time"
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present


You're touching on it but don't know how to explain it as it applies to Relativity.

GPS satellites travel at approximately 8,700 mph (14,000 km/h) relative to Earth.

While a GPS satellite is sitting in a rocket on a launching pad, it has a different inherent MASS & GRAVITY versus when it is in orbit moving at a much higher velocity. This is the associated TIME DILATION effect that the closer a mass approaches the speed of light the greater the mass becomes, hence also it's inherent gravity, gravity being mass dependent.

The increased MASS/GRAVITY came about as the result of the input of energy from the rocket launch thus boosting the satellite closer to the speed of light. Hence with the GPS established in orbit at a higher velocity rate than sitting on the launch pad it is easy to calculate & adjust the Relativistic change in MASS/GRAVITY.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
The increased MASS/GRAVITY came about as the result of the input of energy from the rocket launch thus boosting the satellite closer to the speed of light. Hence with the GPS established in orbit at a higher velocity rate than sitting on the launch pad it is easy to calculate & adjust the Relativistic change in MASS/GRAVITY.


Not really. There are two main corrections for relativity in GPS. One is due to gravity (GR). This is because the satellites are at an altitude where they only feel 1/4 the gravity (iirc) at sea level. This causes the spacecraft clocks to run 45 uS faster than Earth based clocks. The second correction is due to velocity (SR). This causes the spacecraft clocks to run 7 uS slower than Earth based clocks. Hence 45 - 7 = 38 uS total difference.
The GR effect can be shown by taking an atomic clock up a decent sized mountain. Mass doesn't come into it.

http://leapsecond...eat2005/

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
The 10billion Hz is dependent on the transiting electron

The electron travelling at 14,000 km/h 4m/s, plus the earth 64,000mph 29m/s, plus he sun 220km/s, plus the galaxy 630km/s
Equals a total 850033m/s

Every time the electron moves a nano-radii R in it transition, where R=L where T the time to rear R is dependant of the electrons force F as the KE is m(850033m/s + R)* the electron has a quantum quantity of energy as the more m/s added to 850033m/s results in the electron under constant acceleration taking longer to reach radii R, as the 10billion Hz is dependent on how long the transiting electron takes to reach R.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
The transitioning force is relative to velocity of light
Every time the electron moves a nano-radii R in it transition, where R=L where T the time to rear R is dependant of the electrons force F as the KE is m(850033m/s + R)* the electron has a quantum quantity of energy as the more m/s added to 850033m/s results in the electron under constant acceleration taking longer to reach radii R, as the 10billion Hz is dependent on how long the transiting electron takes to reach R.

The electrons velocity is like light, of a wave nature as just like light is not affected by the velocity of the emitter the electron moves by virtue of a force that travels at the speed of light so the electron has to subtract C-(850033m/s + R), the velocity of the satellite and C are relative when the electrons transitioning, effectively the force travelling at the speed of light is taking fractionaly longer for every m/s increase in the satellite velocity
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
The Ostrich in the Sand

Benni:- In the world of ostrich's when life becomes to hot to handle, with a pride of lions bearing down, what's the solution Benni, stand and work out an action plan, or flea as fast ostrich legs can go, or bury your head in the sand Benni, and hope the problem will go away!

Well in the wild all those three solutions are to no avail as the lions have strategies

The simple reason the atomic clock is recording a difference of 38micro-daily-seconds is it takes time to accelerate electrons and the more m/s on top of 850,033m/s the longer it takes to accelerate electrons Benni, there's nothing magical just plain old 330 year old laws of motion:- an object remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by a force - as the electron possesses inertial mass it is subject to these 330 year old laws, as when you're walking down the side-walk and you stub your toe on a stop-sign your experiencing what Isaac experienced when the apple struck his head.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Thank you JD for taking your time to read the simple reason why atomic clocks are recording 38micro-seconds, as this problem, as you have realised, cannot go away, until all the variables have been eliminated
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
The increased MASS/GRAVITY came about as the result of the input of energy from the rocket launch thus boosting the satellite closer to the speed of light. Hence with the GPS established in orbit at a higher velocity rate than sitting on the launch pad it is easy to calculate & adjust the Relativistic change in MASS/GRAVITY.


Not really.
..........yes, really.

The GR effect can be shown by taking an atomic clock up a decent sized mountain.
..........because of the difference in rotational velocity of Earth's perimeter at the top of the mountain versus at the bottom. You don't need to drag an atomic clock to the top of a cold mountain to measure this, just a few feet above the ground on a flat plain is plenty enough.

Mass doesn't come into it.
.........it's ALL about MASS, because the increasing relativistic MASS is what increases gravity thus changing the operating speed of atomic clocks relative to one another at different altitudes.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
^^^^^Not even wrong! Ye Gods, where does one start with that pile of fail? Lol. The GR effect is due to clocks speeding up at altitude relative to Earth based clocks due to lower gravity. i.e. spacetime is less curved. If it was to do with the velocity, you wazzock, it would come under SR, and the clocks would go slower at altitude. They don't. Stay away from this Benni - previous experience shows that you haven't got a chance of understanding it.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
Ye Gods, where does one start with that pile of fail? Lol. The GR effect is due to clocks speeding up at altitude relative to Earth based clocks due to lower gravity. i.e. spacetime is less curved. If it was to do with the velocity, you wazzock, it would come under SR, and the clocks would go slower at altitude. They don't. Stay away from this Benni - previous experience shows that you haven't got a chance of understanding it.


......obviously you have zero comprehension of Time Dilation effects of velocity versus MASS, in other words you have no comprehension of General Relativity & never had a course in Differential Equations, I took Differential Equations so I do.

Too bad your Astronomy based degree had not included some relevant science in General Relativity, but we already Uni of Auckland offers no such degree, so it's no surprise these Relativistic Effects are beyond you.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
In The Shires
Benni> .........it's ALL about MASS, because the increasing relativistic MASS is what increases gravity thus changing the operating speed of atomic clocks relative to one another at different altitudes.

"Staffordshire University> relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic-energy, the technicians operating particle accelerators do not increase the confinement magnetic field with increasing velocity and therefore KE".

Benni, the professor was elucidating relativistic mass is not inertial mass and there fore not actual mass and not subject to gravitation!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Staffordshire University is in the heart of the Potteries famous for Wedgwood pottery the world wide

The Five Towns
Arnold Bennett was born and raised in the Potteries which consisted of the six towns of Tunstall, Burslem (where Bennett spent most of his childhood and youth), Hanley (where he was born), Fenton, Stoke and Longton. The six towns amalgamated in 1910 to become the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent. In 1925 it was granted city status. Locally it is still known as 'the Potteries' and every 'Stokie' will tell you that it consists of six towns.
Bennett's original success was based primarily on the novels and short stories based on the life and history of his birthplace but after 1916 the focus of many of his novels was on London and he still continued to produce both popular and critically acclaimed novels. http://www.arnold...e-towns/
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
"Staffordshire University> relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic-energy,
........sure, WORK (kinetic energy) is required to increase the velocity of a particle by F = ma which states that when a force F is applied to an object there will be a proportional acceleration overcoming inertia. As acceleration by an input of kinetic energy creates velocities such that the particle is pushed into measurable Time Dilation is the point when increased MASS & GRAVITY as measured by instrumentation, at which point the particle is designated a RELATIVISTIC MASS.

But to be fair to the particle, it should be stated that ANY velocity is RELATIVISTIC not just as can be measured, but nuclear physicists have this whimsical cutoff point where they don't want to attach the term RELATIVISTIC to particles whose velocities are below a certain speed, the point of this article but not accurately applied in my opinion which is not humble.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
Staffordshire eh?

https://www.googl...TzpcfzM:

Never been there. Perhaps I will visit on holiday next year.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2018
On second thought, don't click that link. HuffPost will want access to your computer.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
Relativism In The Shires
Staffordshire University> relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic-energy.
.sure, WORK kinetic energy is required to increase the velocity of a particle by F = ma which states when a force F is applied to an object there will be a proportional acceleration overcoming inertia. As acceleration by an input of kinetic energy creates velocities.

The professor was making a subtle point; Newtonian and Einsteinium velocity and kinetic energy are exactly the same, Newtonian increases linearly with no limit, where as Einsteinium increases exponentially to a limit at C, but the energy and velocity are the same, simply kinetic energy of motion
The elucidation arose Benni, because the question asked: - As the electron approach's C in particle accelerators the magnetic field is increased to match the increase in mass where he replied with an emphatic NO - Relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic-energy, then he elaborated Benni!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
Relativism In The Shires and The Transitioning Electron

In the ethereal academic world of the Shires, the transitioning electron moving at (850,033m/s +/- transitioning radius) squared, is infinitely greater than simply measuring (the satellites velocity relative to earth +/- transitioning radius) squared, the total velocity relative to C in the vacuum has to be taken and squared, because the Electron is accelerated with a force that is transmitted at the velocity of light as the electrons total velocity is relative to lights velocity

It is this transitioning electrons acceleration against the force of gravity and its inertial mass in motion that is the 38micro-seconds per day anomaly, when the satellite is in motion because the time of transition and absorption/emission of photons is being used to define the 10billion Hz second, consequently any delay in transition is given an inaccuracy of 38micro-seconds per day which in perspective is 4.4x10-20 seconds per Hz!
savvys84
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
black holes cannot rotate or spin as the time flow rate at the BH is infinity, which is also the same reason that the EM wave cannot propagate there.

And yes GPS has nothing to do with GR and SR. The correction on the clock rates have been arrived at by trial and error, in other words by empirical means, since the early days of the GPS
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018


And yes GPS has nothing to do with GR and SR. The correction on the clock rates have been arrived at by trial and error, in other words by empirical means, since the early days of the GPS


Wrong. As shown in the scientific literature, and already linked here. Stick to engineering, woo boy.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
......obviously you have zero comprehension of Time Dilation effects of velocity versus MASS, in other words you have no comprehension of General Relativity & never had a course in Differential Equations, I took Differential Equations so I do.


Hahahaha. You can't even do basic maths, as shown, you liar. And I understand GR and SR far better than you obviously do, you idiot. You are wrong again. Want some links to show how wrong you are, thicko?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018


And yes GPS has nothing to do with GR and SR. The correction on the clock rates have been arrived at by trial and error, in other words by empirical means, since the early days of the GPS


Wrong. As shown in the scientific literature, and already linked here. Stick to engineering, woo boy.


So, for yet another idiot, I'll post the quote from the first GPS deployment of NAVSTAR;

.......produces an NTS measured value of +443.1 pp 10^12. Comparison of this value to the predicted value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp 10^12 gives a difference of -3.1 pp 10^12.


So, it was predicted, it was observed to be extremely close to the predicted value, and it was corrected for. End of story.

https://archive.o...DA058591
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
The professor was making a subtle point; Newtonian and Einsteinium velocity and kinetic energy are exactly the same,


..........which is what I too was reading into the context of the point you make that I noted.

One thing that kind of galls me a little bit with nuclear physicists is the criteria by which they attempt to isolate RELATIVISTIC MASS from NON-RELATIVISTIC MASS, it's the same as what this article is about.

Anything that is moving is in fact RELATIVISTIC & they know it as I explained it above with regard to Kinetic Energy & accelerating velocities. This is one of the big differences between Engineers & Physcists. In engineering we need to be PRECISE because the things we build can kill people if improperly designed.

The concept that something only becomes RELATIVISTIC starting at 30% of the speed of light is misguided, why not 29%? 28? 18? GPS correction is all about RELATIVISTIC velocities between insrumentation & attenuation.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
Relativism in the mind of the absolute velocity of light
Benni> One thing that kind of galls me a little bit with nuclear physicists is the criteria by which they attempt to isolate RELATIVISTIC MASS from NON-RELATIVISTIC MASS, it's the same as what this article is about.

The KE relativistic formula can be used for every day speeds as walking around, as the effects only start to differ at 25%C, which is why the generalisation of relativistic KE becomes relativistic at 25%C

If Sir Isaac Newton had realised the absolute velocity of light and combined it with his realisation inertial mass does not increase with increasing KE and therefore velocity, if by realising these effects 330 years ago Benni, his KE formula would have incorporated this relativistic effect and we would have been using it for 330 years without everyone realising it.

By implication Benni, he was nearly there! Because, at the time, they were discussing the photonic nature and velocity of light.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
GPS correction is all about RELATIVISTIC velocities between insrumentation & attenuation.


No, it isn't. The velocity component is only -7 uS. The GR component (due to altitude) is + 45 uS.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2018
Force time distance is the time the transitional electron take to gain kinetic energy

As KE is force times distance, at increasing velocity, the KE is increasing at an ever increasing rate, such that the transitioning electron under constant force takes longer and longer to reach its transitional orbital - the implication is clear - the increasing velocity of the satellite on top of 850,033m/s is requiring the electron to expend more energy and with a constant force is consequently taking more and more time to reach the 10billion Hz in the same times as when it was moving a m/s less or 850,032m/s!

Because there they are, in the clock, trying to keep up with the varying velocity of the clock, where each recorded oscillation is different depending on the varying velocity between oscillations recorded by the clock, in fact you can use the clock effectively as a measure of changing velocity by measuring the changing time between oscillations, but then you will need a Clock!
hat1208
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
The PhysOrg comment sections actually feel toxic. All the invective and shade tossed around, especially by the fringers, is just insane! Whatever comments of value there are here are buried by all the crap. It's just not worth the time to wade through all the BS.


Ignore button
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2018
Atomic clocks and matter at 30%C are related and inseparable

As the matter is falling into this blackhole at 30% C, as can be clearly seen by the physicality of using a clock which is effected by acceleration, velocity and gravity which is acceleration, it is not physically possible to get an accurate measure of TIME, and consequently when measuring stellar velocities in the vacuum, a clock using transitional electrons through no fault of the electrons the clock is going to be inaccurate!

The reason why we are able to measure velocities in the vacuum to great accuracy despite these electron KE anomalies is because the atomic clocks we are using are measuring time to such a high degree of accuracy, the anomalies are irrelevant!

As can be clearly seen matter falling into blackholes and atomic clocks without their inaccuracies are relevant and related as astronomy cannot function without accurate unchanging clocks whatever the environment they find themselves in!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
@granville
Nevertheless, I disagree with the nomenclature. The term "time dilation" doesn't really fit the pattern of flight of an aircraft or a GPS satellite in LEO, Or any satellite in orbit, for that matter.
Time itself cannot "dilate". Dilate is the wrong description to describe the effects that gravity has on Mass. And if that Mass is also being subjected to velocity, altitude, and direction, it is STILL only gravity that is affecting that Mass. The others are merely incidental and temporary.
GR and SR offer an observation of the LENGTH of time, that is, the interval between ticks in the mechanism of the Caesium clocks, which are far more accurate than non-nuclear driven mechanisms.
Now that we have Caesium clocks with their marvelous accuracy, it may be possible to observe the timeframe of the infalling Mass from the moment it leaves its usual domicile, until it disappears from view.
And yet, that doesn't require for Time to dilate. We only observe the event itself.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
Staffordshire University> relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic-energy
SEU> @granville
I disagree with the nomenclature. The term "time dilation" doesn't really fit the pattern of flight of an aircraft or a GPS satellite in LEO, Or any satellite in orbit, for that matter.Time itself cannot "dilate" the wrong description to describe the effects that gravity has on Mass. And if that Mass is also being subjected to velocity, altitude, and direction, it is STILL only gravity that is affecting that Mass.

SEU:- The professors statement in Stoke on Trent has far reaching consequences, they obviously live in the real world in the Potteries, may be it is the gritty realism of the potteries, crumbling pottery kilns, it is industrial town where everyone set up kilns in every corner of the 5 Towns.
How long has everyone been correcting caesium clocks for this 38micro-second anomaly when it is simply a Newtonian effect of acceleration, velocity and gravity?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
The Ground Based Caesium Clock is inaccurate by 18 seconds daily!

SEU:- If a Satellite Caesium Clock differs from the Earth based clock by 38microseconds/day, as the Earth is also moving, the ground based Clock also differs, the satellite is moving at an absolute velocity of 850,033m/s, as 850,033 - 4= 850,029m/s, the Absolute Velocity of Earth Relative to Light is 850,029m/s, so by approximating, 4m/s = 38microsecond/day 38(850,029/4) = 18seconds/day, this means the Ground Based Clock SEU, is inaccurate approximately by 18 seconds daily!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
The time between the frequency shifts of the transitional electron
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System> When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day, a. Without correction, errors in the initial pseudo range of roughly 10 km/day would accumulate https://en.wikipe...g_System

From the Wikipedia analysis it appears "the 38 microseconds per day" is being corrected relative to Earth's absolute velocity, by implication "roughly 10 km/day would accumulate" if not corrected. Inaccuracies would result - "if not corrected", means subtraction of the 38 microseconds per day anomaly!
By implication the caesium clock is inaccurately measuring the time between the frequency shifts of the transitional electron in its absolute velocity relative to light!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
The atomic clock is telling true time at absolute zero velocity

JD:- This anomaly cannot go away using clocks effected by acceleration, velocity and gravity 38microsecond relative difference in velocities between the earth's velocity and satellites velocities is caused by physical properties of the inertial mass of the transitioning electron JD

The earths absolute relative velocity relative to light can be ascertained by earths frequency shift of laser light, the same the satellites absolute relative velocity, once knowing the exact absolute velocity of earth, taking earth to zero velocity, the frequency shift of the transitioning electron at absolute zero velocity once known the atomic clock as it is telling true time at absolute zero velocity. Then a true correction for all velocities can be applied for the inertial mass accelerating properties of the transitioning electron JD.

Atomic clocks properly corrected for all velocities will give a truer measure of time
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
East Kent University> common sense ruins physics

The physics professor discussing close packed lattice atoms was suddenly faced with a query by one of the students, as he was unable to answer the question in the requisite manner, he applied an earthy technique; by stating "common sense ruins physics" and by doing so, because the student was on the right track, he answered the students question, and as the lecture was over, everyone left smiling!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
The atomic clock is telling true time at absolute zero velocity

JD:- This anomaly cannot go away using clocks effected by acceleration, velocity and gravity 38microsecond relative difference in velocities between the earth's velocity and satellites velocities is caused by physical properties of the inertial mass of the transitioning electron JD



Complete crap. Stop commenting on stuff you don't understand. Look up;

gh/c^2 and 1/2 v^2/c2. It has nothing to do with frigging electrons.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
The Anomaly is in the Mechanics of this Clock
The atomic clock tells true time at absolute zero velocity
JD:- This anomaly can't go away using clocks effected by acceleration velocity and gravity 38microsecond relative difference in velocities between earth's velocity and satellites velocities is caused by physical properties of the inertial mass of the transitioning electron JD

Complete crap Stop commenting on stuff you don't understand Look up
gh/c^2 and 1/2 v^2/c2. It has nothing to do with frigging electrons

So to appear blunt JD that's not an answer and not addressing what you know about the construction of this clock
This clock is measuring 1/10billionth of a second which is varying and is proportional to velocity
Looking at the electron and photon as real physical particles as actual objects they can be viewed as mechanical objects in this light the caesium clock is purely a mechanical object with mechanical moving parts all be them in nano-dimensions
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
^^^^^More crap. Just link to whatever paper you are getting this nonsense from. Otherwise, like I said, you know nothing about the subject and should desist from wasting valuable pixels on it.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
The errors and how they can be corrected
jonesdave> ^^^^^More crap. Just link to whatever paper you are getting this nonsense from. Otherwise, like I said, you know nothing about the subject and should desist from wasting valuable pixels on it.

JD, with your long experience, the mechanics of this clock are known to you and its foibles are also known to you as "The Anomaly is in the Mechanics of this Clock" and you know the mechanics of this clock is measuring these anomalies, the reason for these anomalies is not based in a theoretical paper in 1905 when these atomic clocks were not in existences, the Anomaly is in the Mechanics of this Clock, every ones interest is why is this clock inaccurate and how can we put it right

JD, this is the reply that was expected, solely and interest and explanation of what you know about this clock and what physicality is causing the errors and how they can be corrected!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
@granville
As I have long disliked the term "time dilation", I have decided to give it a new appellation that would better describe its measurements of Length with regards to the Duration of an Event: Time Deviation - which would be much more appropriate, since measurements of the Length of Time sometimes deviate by several ticks of the clock's mechanism. It would be nice if scientists were to rid the world of that "time dilation" silliness. The reason being that Time is only a concept that was thought up by humans to describe the lengths of A to B, whether an Event or a Distance.

I can't seem to find out whether or not Caesium clocks are radioactive.

How many electrons are in cesium?
"The number of positive charges in the atom is equal to the number of protons that is equal to its atomic number or 55. The atom also has 55 electrons which are negatively charged and the protons and electrons make the Cesium atom electrically neutral."
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
Looking at the electron and photon as real physical particles


...."photon"? Don't you mean proton?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
JD, this is the reply that was expected, solely and interest and explanation of what you know about this clock and what physicality is causing the errors and how they can be corrected!


There are no errors in the bloody clock, you idiot. The differences are due to GR and SR, And were predicted before they were measured. And can be measured and predicted in a whole host of other situations. And the predictions keep on coming out right. Understand? It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
LOL The term "Time Deviation" seems to have been already taken up for use in a slightly different context. With no mention of Caesium clocks. And there I thought that I was being original.
Well, back to the drawing board, as they say.

Time deviation
Time deviation (TDEV),[1] also known as \sigma_x(\tau), is the time stability of phase x versus observation interval τ of the measured clock source. The time deviation thus forms a standard deviation type of measurement to indicate the time instability of the signal source. This is a scaled variant of frequency stability of Allan deviation. It is commonly defined from the modified Allan deviation, but other estimators may be used.

Time variance (TVAR) also known as \sigma_x^2(\tau) is the time stability of phase versus observation interval tau. It is a scaled variant of modified Allan variance.

TDEV is a metric often used to determine an aspect of the quality of timing signals in telecommunication applications and is a (..)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.
......it's ALL about the ELECTRON!!!!!!!!!!!

Exposed to specific frequencies of radio wave radiation electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits back and forth between energy states of the electron shell. This electron jumping within atoms creates a precise way to count fractions of a second. Cesium is particularly good for this because it has a single orbital electron in it's outermost shell of the electron shell. This has nothing to do with radioactivity.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.
......it's ALL about the ELECTRON!!!!!!!!!!!

Exposed to specific frequencies of radio wave radiation electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits back and forth between energy states of the electron shell. This electron jumping within atoms creates a precise way to count fractions of a second. Cesium is particularly good for this because it has a single orbital electron in it's outermost shell of the electron shell. This has nothing to do with radioactivity.


And none of that has anything to do with time dilation. A sufficiently accurate optical clock would show the same effect.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
Had been wondering which isotope of Cs is used in atomic clocks:

https://melscienc...-clocks/

Cae­sium-133
The sta­ble iso­tope Cs-133 is used in pho­toele­ments, pho­to­mul­ti­pli­ers and de­tec­tors of ion­iz­ing ra­di­a­tion (cae­sium io­dide). Cs-133 is also used as an op­ti­cal ma­te­ri­al (in the form of io­dide and bro­mide), and in the man­u­fac­ture of lu­mi­nous tubes (in com­bi­na­tions with zir­co­ni­um and tin). Cae­sium acts as a cat­a­lyst in the pro­duc­tion of am­mo­ni­um, sul­fu­ric acid, butyl al­co­hol, in de­hy­dro­g­e­niza­tion re­ac­tions and in the pro­duc­tion of formic acid. Cae­sium is the ba­sis of med­i­cal prod­ucts for the treat­ment of ul­cer­ous dis­eases, diph­the­ria, shocks and schizophre­nia. Cae­sium plas­ma is a com­po­nent of MHD-gen­er­a­tors with high pow­er ef­fi­cien­cy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
-c-
Cs-133 is used in atom­ic clocks – the most pre­cise de­vices for telling the time. Since 1967, in the SI in­ter­na­tion­al sys­tem of units, 1 sec­ond has been de­fined as 9 192 631 770 pe­ri­ods of the ra­di­a­tion cor­re­spond­ing to the tran­si­tion be­tween the two hy­per­fine lev­els of the ground state of the cae­sium-133 atom. The first cae­sium atom­ic clock was built in 1955 by Louis Es­sen at the Na­tion­al Physics Lab­o­ra­to­ry in the UK. This clock has an ac­cu­ra­cy of one sec­ond in 300,000 years.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
-contd-
To­day, atom­ic clocks are used in the nav­i­ga­tion sys­tems of space­craft, satel­lites, bal­lis­tic rock­ets, air­craft, sub­marines and au­to­mo­biles func­tion­ing au­to­mat­i­cal­ly by satel­lite link. Atom­ic clocks are also used in sys­tems of satel­lite and ground telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions, in mo­bile base sta­tions, in­ter­na­tion­al and na­tion­al stan­dards of­fices and ser­vices of ex­act time.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.
......it's ALL about the ELECTRON!!!!!!!!!!!

Exposed to specific frequencies of radio wave radiation electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits back and forth between energy states of the electron shell. This electron jumping within atoms creates a precise way to count fractions of a second. Cesium is particularly good for this because it has a single orbital electron in it's outermost shell of the electron shell. This has nothing to do with radioactivity.


And none of that has anything to do with time dilation. A sufficiently accurate optical clock would show the same effect.


It certainly does if two such clocks are moving at different velocities!!!!! The faster moving clock has higher inherent mass, hence higher inherent gravity within the clock system, hence TIME DILATION. I know, gravity being MASS DEPENDENT is a tough conjecture for Pop-Cosmology to comprehend.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.
......it's ALL about the ELECTRON!!!!!!!!!!!

Exposed to specific frequencies of radio wave radiation electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits back and forth between energy states of the electron shell. This electron jumping within atoms creates a precise way to count fractions of a second. Cesium is particularly good for this because it has a single orbital electron in it's outermost shell of the electron shell. This has nothing to do with radioactivity.
says Benni

I believe that you are correct. The jumping electron going back and forth is precisely self-timed naturally and never varies in length of duration, which is what makes the Cs 133 atomic clock a precision instrument.

WRT "time dilation", it is still only a result of Gravity's interaction with Mass, depending on altitude and direction. Velocity in flight doesn't seem to have much impact on Mass when the Mass is at the same level of altitude.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
It certainly does if two such clocks are moving at different velocities!!!!! The faster moving clock has higher inherent mass, hence higher inherent gravity within the clock system, hence TIME DILATION. I know, gravity being MASS DEPENDENT is a tough conjecture for Pop-Cosmology to comprehend.


Lol. What a burke! What is the equation for time dilation in SR?

https://www.phy.o...ime.html

Show us where m or g is in that equation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
jones
Get this through your thick skull. Time does NOT DILATE. Evidently, the term Time Dilation was used to underscore the differences in clocks up at high altitude, and the ones on the ground. There is the 24 hour clock that works well at the Earth's surface. But when you move up to a high altitude, say 40K feet, it is Gravity that loses some of its strength/hold on Mass the higher the Mass goes up. It has nothing to do with Time. Gravity weakens with altitude and gets stronger closer to the centre of Mass. It is GRAVITY that is slowing down the hands on the clock and its mechanical cogs and wheels - not Time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
If Time was able to "dilate" i.e. open up, then when we travel East we would gain some hours and wind up having breakfast when we had just had breakfast only about an hour before. And if we travel West, we might wind up traveling to tomorrow, which still hadn't arrived in our original location. In short - we would experience Time Travel.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
EDIT
If we travel heading West, then we would wind up traveling to YESTERDAY where we would repeat everything we had already done. that is if Time was able to dilate, i.e. open up.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
Below is the electron shell structure of cesium:

1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d10 4s2 4p6 4d10 5s2 5p6 6s1

The part of shell that makes the Cesium clock WORK, are the two outermost shells of electron orbitals identified above as 5p6 & 6s1 which are the last two in the above string. The second to last outermost shell of orbital electrons is the 5p shell containing 6 electrons. The outermost shell is the 6s shell containing 1 electron.

Electrons will pair up within each shell of each orbital position when enough electrons are available to fill all the orbital electron spin positions within each shell, However in cesium there is a lone electron in the outermost shell leaving an empty spin position just looking for an opportunity to pair up with another electron. Along comes a microwave photon & whacks one of the electron orbiting pairs in the 5p shell, one of those electrons absorbs a sudden energy boost & jumps finding an empty position in the 6s shell & fills it in......cont'd
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
........so there is no longer one electron in the outermost 6s shell, but two. Now there is an empty orbital position in the 5p shell because an electron took a jump to the 6s shell.

As long as there is an input of a specific frequency of microwave photons whacking against the electron shell of the cesium atom, the electron that JUMPED from the 5p shell will remain in the 6s shell. As soon as the microwave radiation is turned off the electron that jumped from 5p to 6s will JUMP back to the exact empty orbital from whence it came in the 5p shell, the timing for all this to occur is the basis of the Cesium atomic clock.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
As soon as the microwave radiation is turned off the electron that jumped from 5p to 6s will JUMP back to "the exact empty orbital from whence it came" in the 5p shell, the timing for all this to occur is the basis of the Cesium atomic clock.


"the exact empty orbital from whence it came", should read: the exact presently empty orbital position from whence it came
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
In REAL time, when we travel East, depending on how many hours we are in the air and the velocity at which we are traveling, we do lose hours as we head into daylight. The lower in altitude we are traveling, the sooner we arrive. At higher altitude, it takes a bit longer to arrive due to the curvature of the Earth at high altitude.
Conversely, heading West we gain hours - IIRC
granville583762
3.6 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
The Anomaly is in the Mechanics of this Clock
It is nothing to do with bloody electrons.
......it's ALL about the ELECTRON!!!!!!!!!!!
Exposed to specific frequencies of radio wave radiation electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits back and forth between energy states of the electron shell. This electron jumping within atoms creates a precise way to count fractions of a second..

Benni:- "electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus jump orbits" An electron is 9.1x10-31kg jumping orbital radius R x 9.1x10-31kg x T the time it takes to jump distance R where force F is a constant force of the electron where velocity V is the absolute velocity of the electron
Benni this anomaly is a simply Newtonian calculation of mass in motion at absolute velocity of 850,033m/s where earth's absolute velocity is minus the satellite is 850,029m/s
m(850,033m/s)*- m(850,029m/s)* = 2KE you have to calculate from absolute veloctity because all velocity is relative to light.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
This clock takes longer to reach absolute velocities relative to light

The electron takes longer to reach 850,033m/s than 850,029m/s under constant force, this is the anomaly in this clock
This is why this clock gives inaccurate readings
The electron is physically jumping orbital radii at absolute velocities under constant force
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
The electron jumping is free and weightless in the vacuum

Each electron that jumps orbital radius has to individually reach 850,033m/s multiplied by 10billion time a second give a realisation the errors are cumulative because the electron in the moment of jumping is free and weightless in the vacuum propelled by a constant force moving at the speed of light.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
Now physical errors are corrected by a theoretical paper of 1905!

What is being impressed, is the anomaly is based on physical mechanical reasons in this clock and in absolute velocity of motion that is causing errors in this clock
When designing a clock that in practise its time keeping differs from ground based clocks you do not refer to theoretical papers of 1905 with no internet, no space travel, no nuclear reactors, no LHCs, no atomic clocks and without physically correcting the errors, you proclaim the errors are due to a theoretical paper of 1905!

Is this to prove the theoretical paper of 1905! Because if it is, we still have a hole in our bucket dear Eliza, because our clock still has its hole dripping seconds!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
Only at a absolute velocity of 850,029m/s
SEU> -c-Cs-133 is used in atom­ic clocks – the most pre­cise de­vices for telling the time. Since 1967, in the SI in­ter­na­tion­al sys­tem of units, 1 sec­ond has been de­fined as 9 192 631 770 pe­ri­ods of the ra­di­a­tion cor­re­spond­ing to the tran­si­tion be­tween the two hy­per­fine lev­els of the ground state of the cae­sium-133 atom. The first cae­sium atom­ic clock was built in 1955 by Louis Es­sen at the Na­tion­al Physics Lab­o­ra­to­ry in the UK. This clock has an ac­cu­ra­cy of one sec­ond in 300,000 years.

SEU:- "This clock has an ac­cu­ra­cy of one sec­ond in 300,000 years" only at an absolute velocity of 850,029m/s, at 850,033m/s it has an accuracy of 38microsecond different - its accuracy has to be based on absolute zero velocity.
4m/s = 38microsecond daily, by calculating from absolute zero velocity, this clock at 850,029m/s is inaccurate by 18 seconds daily
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
jones
Get this through your thick skull. Time does NOT DILATE. Evidently, the term Time Dilation was used to underscore the differences in clocks up at high altitude, and the ones on the ground. There is the 24 hour clock that works well at the Earth's surface. But when you move up to a high altitude, say 40K feet, it is Gravity that loses some of its strength/hold on Mass the higher the Mass goes up. It has nothing to do with Time. Gravity weakens with altitude and gets stronger closer to the centre of Mass. It is GRAVITY that is slowing down the hands on the clock and its mechanical cogs and wheels - not Time.


Idiot! Just show me the paper you got that from, you burke. How is gravity affecting an atomic clock? It doesn't.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
Just a note for the hard of thinking; the electron's attraction to the atomic nucleus is controlled by EM. Not gravity. At those scales, EM is ~ 10^36 x stronger than gravity. The only time gravity has an effect, is under very extreme conditions, such as in neutron stars.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
But when you move up to a high altitude, say 40K feet, it is Gravity that loses some of its strength/hold on Mass the higher the Mass goes up. It has nothing to do with Time. Gravity weakens with altitude and gets stronger closer to the centre of Mass. It is GRAVITY that is slowing down the hands on the clock and its mechanical cogs and wheels - not Time.


You've hit on just half the issue with changing gravitational forces based on altitude. The other issue is a cesium clock that is moving at a higher velocity than another one of exactly the construction. A cesium clock approaching the speed of light is inherently more MASSIVE than one sitting on the surface of planet Earth, therefore more heavily influenced by it own gravity thus slowing it down COMPARED to earthbound clocks. Of course if you are a passenger aboard the cesium clock you won't notice the clock operating any differently than if it were on the surface of planet Earth.

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
Time does not change because a clock is slow
Benni>Of course if you are a passenger aboard the caesium clock you won't notice the clock operating any differently than if it were on the surface of planet

The passengers are not aging or getting younger, it's the clock telling the wrong time, time does not change because a clock is slow, in fact time does not change at all it is a human emotion of how long tasks take to complete

Even photons in this clock are affected by gravity which makes the clock go slow

This clock is an Obfuscation to prove a theoretical paper of 1905, hence all the obsessive testing with this faulty clock to prove said theoretical paper, otherwise these errors would be corrected in this clock with the result this clock telling the correct time, the theoretical paper of 1905 would be at odds with reality!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
The faster the bus is going the longer it takes you to catch it up analogy

Benni when the electron is moving at 850,033 m/s it is accelerated with a force travelling 299792458m/s
You have to imagine the electron floating in the vacuum where a force travelling at 299792458m/s is accelerating the electron just in the same way when you're running for a bus you can only run as fast as your feet are pushing from zero velocity, the side walk
The same for 299792458m/s is from absolute zero velocity as when the electron reaches 299792458m/s it can go no faster, because it is the running for the bus analogy
This why you have to calculate from absolute velocity of the earth and the satellite, because the faster the bus is going the longer it takes you to catch it up
This is the anomaly in the transitioning electron; it is taking extra time between transitions!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
Time does not change because a clock is slow
.......dead on the money correct when comparing to other techniques for measuring time.

This why you have to calculate from absolute velocity of the earth and the satellite, because the faster the bus is going the longer it takes you to catch it up
This is the anomaly in the transitioning electron; it is taking extra time between transitions!
.......I see what you mean, but calling it an "anomaly" suggests something EXTRAORDINARY is going on here with regard to RELATIVISTIC VELOCITIES when in fact TIME DILATION/INCREASING MASS & GRAVITY are immutable Laws of Physics.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
It's TIME to correct these errors in these clocks
Time does not change because a clock is slow
.......dead on the money correct when comparing to other techniques for measuring time.
This why you have to calculate from absolute velocity of the earth and the satellite, because the faster the bus is going the longer it takes you to catch it up
This is the anomaly in the transitioning electron; it is taking extra time between transitions!
.......I see what you mean, but calling it an "anomaly" suggests something EXTRAORDINARY is going on here with regard to RELATIVISTIC VELOCITIES when in fact TIME DILATION/INCREASING MASS & GRAVITY are immutable Laws of Physics.

The anomaly has been discarded, but the caesium clock still has errors and the optical clocks still have errors due to velocity and gravity, as time does not change with velocity and gravity these clock need their errors correcting
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
A little bit about the concept of Time.

Time is NOT a Force. Gravity is a weak Force wrt Mass, while EM is an even greater/stronger Force due to the EM not being dependent on altitude, velocity, weight, dimensions or direction of Mass. EM is free to go anywhere.
That being said, I want to emphasise that Time has no power in the mechanics of Caesium clocks or other clocks. The only thing that shows the passage of Time is the FACE of the clock.

ALL of it is purely MECHANICAL, including jumping electrons and any other Quantum activities and their effects on all Matter/Energy. EVERYTHING is done through MECHANICAL actions/behaviours/progressions.

It is not only in the measurements of Time wrt Distance/Events that is MECHANICAL, but in everything else - including how the human, animal and plant bodies operate. Even the Earth, the Sun and all planets operate by mechanical means.
The Universe is a HIGHLY MECHANISED PLACE from the smallest particle to the biggest mass.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2018
jones
Time does NOT DILATE. Evidently, the term Time Dilation was used to underscore the differences in clocks up at high altitude, and the ones on the ground. There is the 24 hour clock that works well at the Earth's surface. But when you move up to a high altitude, say 40K feet, it is Gravity that loses some of its strength/hold on Mass the higher the Mass goes up. It has nothing to do with Time. Gravity weakens with altitude and gets stronger closer to the centre of Mass. It is GRAVITY that is slowing down the hands on the clock and its mechanical cogs and wheels - not Time.


Idiot! Just show me the paper you got that from, you burke. How is gravity affecting an atomic clock? It doesn't.


Actually it does: SEU:- "This clock has an ac­cu­ra­cy of one sec­ond in 300,000 years" only at an absolute velocity of 850,029m/s, at 850,033m/s it has an accuracy of 38microsecond different - its accuracy has to be based on absolute zero velocity.
4m/s = 38m/s daily
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
Idiot! Just show me the paper you got that from, you burke. How is gravity affecting an atomic clock? It doesn't.

Actually it does: SEU:- "This clock has an ac­cu­ra­cy of one sec­ond in 300,000 years" only at an absolute velocity of 850,029m/s, at 850,033m/s it has an accuracy of 38microsecond different - its accuracy has to be based on absolute zero velocity.
4m/s = 38m/s daily


What? Sorry, what paper is that from?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
ALL of it is purely MECHANICAL, including jumping electrons and any other Quantum activities and their effects on all Matter/Energy. EVERYTHING is done through MECHANICAL actions/behaviours/progressions.


Yep, jumping electrons from one orbital position to another is WORK (Kinetic Energy), purely mechanical. I don't know if it's possible to actually figure out on such a small scale what error(s) can creep into this Kinetic Energy process, but we do know one such error is INSTRUMENTATION ERROR, we know this because even such error is itself mechanical or we wouldn't be able to measure it.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
ALL of it is purely MECHANICAL, including jumping electrons and any other Quantum activities and their effects on all Matter/Energy. EVERYTHING is done through MECHANICAL actions/behaviours/progressions.


Yep, jumping electrons from one orbital position to another is WORK (Kinetic Energy), purely mechanical. I don't know if it's possible to actually figure out on such a small scale what error(s) can creep into this Kinetic Energy process, but we do know one such error is INSTRUMENTATION ERROR, we know this because even such error is itself mechanical or we wouldn't be able to measure it.


Complete bollocks.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
The anomaly has been discarded, but the caesium clock still has errors and the optical clocks still have errors due to velocity and gravity, as time does not change with velocity and gravity these clock need their errors correcting


This is purely an opinion on my part, but the errors I see inherent with cesium clocks is the consistency of the microwave frequency that causes electrons to jump orbital positions within the electron shell from the 5p6 to the 6s1 position.

Remember to make this clock work the cesium atom must have 100% exact frequency from the microwave generator 100% of the time. Just a tiny frequency glitch in the microwave generator will for a cycle of the electro-magnetic wave momentarily reduce kinetic energy needed by the electron to make it jump orbital positions so the clock can continue the timing process. Just remember that the microwave generator is largely a mechanical device.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
Accuracy is dependent on input of a specific frequency of microwave photons
Benni> Remember to make this clock work the cesium atom must have 100% exact frequency from the microwave generator 100% of the time. Just a tiny frequency glitch in the microwave generator will for a cycle of the electro-magnetic wave momentarily reduce kinetic energy needed by the electron to make it jump orbital positions so the clock can continue the timing process. Just remember that the microwave generator is largely a mechanical device.

Benni:- As soon as you mentioned "an input of a specific frequency of microwave photons" it was like saying there is no way of fixing this clock as the clock can only be as accurate as the input of a specific frequency of microwave photons
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
A specific frequency of microwave photons

This clock is Obfuscation in time, It proves a theoretical paper of 1905, and now it appears it cannot be corrected to tell the correct unchanging time in velocity and gravitation, the very definition of Obfuscation.
This clock by implication as everyone knew of its inherent errors, it should never have been relied on to the extent it has.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Your Parable on the Obfuscation in time reminded me that a difference of just 1 second variation/loss in a forthcoming period of 300,000 years would be too much of a loss if the exact same atomic clock is still used in that year of 300,000 A.D,
While 1 second may not seem like much, it could mean the world of difference in terms of driving a car, for example, or the launching of a satellite, missile or space vessel full of astronauts or colonists to Titan or Enceladus. A launch that is off by minus 1 second could force an aborted takeoff. It is imperative to have a precise timeframe for such a potentially dangerous undertaking as a launch of a rocket.

If the same Caesium clock that is still in use in the year 300,000 AD cannot be corrected in any way due to errant electrons, then that 1 second will have to be taken into consideration as a flaw in the Caesium clockwork, and the timing of launch will need to account for the 1 second loss.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
4m/s relative difference from zero velocity is an error of 16miles a day

If it was just 1 second in 300,000yrs, but it doesn't just stop there......
SEU, Its not one second, taking this clocks absolute relative velocity of 850,029m/s to 0m/s is 18 seconds of daily error
Without knowing your velocity and gravitational acceleration in the vacuum, this clock is of no earthly use.
38microseconds daily x 18,000mph x 24hours = 16.416miles
A relative difference of 4m/s to earths 850,029m/s, your distance is 16miles in error every day in the vacuum
This clock is only accurate to 1 second in 300,000yrs when moving at 850,029m/s fixed to an earth that is moving at 850,029m/s in other words no difference in relative velocity or the same at absolute zero velocity!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
If the same Caesium clock that is still in use in the year 300,000 AD cannot be corrected in any way due to errant electrons, then that 1 second will have to be taken into consideration as a flaw in the Caesium clockwork, and the timing of launch will need to account for the 1 second loss.


......even still, it would be more accurate than jonesy's wristwatch.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
Today's wristwatches are known to degrade in several ways, particularly when the metals of their mechanical springs, wheels and cogs corrode or become dinged after years of use. And batteries lose power.
Unless the watch on jones' paw is the equivalent of a down-sized Caesium clock, which would still be too large to wear unless being carried in a backpack, there would be no hope for jones' watch to be precisely accurate, even at the tender age of 300,000 years if somehow it were able to survive that long.
As has been intimated, electrons have their own little secret schedule of performance where very few events are able to prohibit or prevent that performance. But it does happen, which was unforeseen by those who insist that the Caesium clock solves the problem of what GR and SR had predicted.
Why, even electrons, being mechanical creatures and subject to whims, could cause trouble for their radioactive Caesium parent.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
Idiot! Just show me the paper you got that from, you burke. How is gravity affecting an atomic clock? It doesn't.
says jones

A sample part of the paper has already been shown above. You will have to copy and paste a sentence or two to google its source.

Yes it does. The mechanical structure of the Caesium clock is made of metals, plastics and possibly other sources of Mass. It is the structure itself that is acted upon by Gravity, although weakly. Which is why the Caesium clock's electrons are not truly unbounded by gravity.
In outer space between planets, the Caesium clock would also be subjected to Solar and Cosmic radiation, but at Earth's surface it will work properly, losing microseconds until it reaches the age of 300,000 years when it will lose a full second.

BTW, I don't think that Cheryl Burke will appreciate knowing how you mistreat and abuse her surname.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
Idiot! Just show me the paper you got that from, you burke. How is gravity affecting an atomic clock? It doesn't.
says jones

A sample part of the paper has already been shown above. You will have to copy and paste a sentence or two to google its source.

Yes it does. The mechanical structure of the Caesium clock is made of metals, plastics and possibly other sources of Mass. It is the structure itself that is acted upon by Gravity, although weakly. Which is why the Caesium clock's electrons are not truly unbounded by gravity.
'''blah, blah, blah.

BTW, I don't think that Cheryl Burke will appreciate knowing how you mistreat and abuse her surname.


WTF are you on about, bozo? Gravity has nothing to do with the operation of atomic clocks.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
I never said that gravity has anything to do with the operation of atomic clocks. Gravity affects the STRUCTURE of the clock as that structure of the clock is not composed of Caesium. Any metal parts will be subjected to the pull of gravity.

BTW. where is everyone in physorg. I have been to several articles today (Thursday) and most are empty of any comments. What is it about Thursdays that causes this? What have you done with them?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
Strontium optical lattice clock used to measure gravitation

"measured the gravity potential difference between the exact location of the clock inside the mountain and a second clock at INRIM – located 90km away in Torino, Italy, at a height difference of about 1,000 m.
The accurate comparison of the two clocks was made possible using a 150 km long optical fibre link, set up by INRIM, and a frequency comb from NPL, to connect the clock to the link. Researchers from Leibniz Universität Hannover also determined the gravity potential difference using conventional geodetic techniques, and the two measurements were shown to be consistent. http://www.npl.co...rst-time "

One of many examples of atomic clock and their uses measuring gravity, when not used for measuring time because there effected by gravity!
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
PHYSICSWORLD Atomic clocks in space detect gravitational waves

"gravitational-wave detector two space-based atomic clocks unveiled by physicists in the US. The scheme involves placing two atomic clocks in different locations around the Sun and using them to measure tiny shifts in the frequency of a laser beam shone from one clock to the other
Now, Shimon Kolkowitz and Jun Ye of JILA in Colorado with Mikhail Lukin at Harvard University a proposal for detecting gravitational waves using two space-based atomic clocks. Each device would be an optical-lattice atomic clock, which is an extremely precise timekeeper that uses the frequency of an atomic transition to measure time, atoms are trapped within a 1D optical lattice that is a standing wave created by reflecting laser light from a mirror. https://physicswo...l-waves/ "

PHYSICSWORLD has more of these articles JD; they certainly do not use your colourful obtuse language
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
We all know its hard JD and it goes against the grain, but reply in the in the standard of PHYSICSWORLD
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
PHYSICSWORLD and Optical clocks

"In a standard atomic clock, a beam of caesium-133 atoms is probed by microwaves that have a frequency of about 9.2 x 109 Hz. When the microwave frequency is adjusted to a value of exactly 9192 631 770 Hz, the photons have an energy that is equal to the energy difference between the two very closely spaced energy levels that make up the ground state of the caesium atoms. The atoms absorb the microwaves and a signal generated from the absorption is fed back to the microwave source, which stops it drifting from this specific frequency. The stability imposed on the microwave source by the atoms is what allows us to define the second as the duration of 9192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom https://physicswo...-clocks/ "

Optical clocks use light rather than microwaves but is impossible to be unaffected by gravity JD!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
jones finds it impossible to reply with a civil tongue; instead digging into his bag of retorts and insults that were his favorites at University of Auckland where he knew that one day he would get his revenge on his betters were he to emplace himself as the head of the class in such a venue as physorg. Notwithstanding the fact that the class is no longer in session, jones will always have good reason to exhibit his hostility toward those who are merely attempting to teach him some manners, as well as good science. Poor jones.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
@granville
Thanks for the links. Who would have thought that the Cs atoms could have such an effect on microwaves that the frequency could become so well established between both parties, as though they had become identical twins.

Speaking of twins, for some time now, I have been collecting instances of the twinning of word(s) within a sentence. I have noticed that you have done just that in your post above, part of which says, "goes against the grain, but reply in the in the standard of".
I have collected thousands of such instances of twinning, and have decided to continue finding more. Some in my collection are a series of words doubled - not just one or two. It is interesting to see this happening over and over in many comments and in magazines, and all sorts of periodicals in the written word.

I am attempting to find the reason why this is. The most common twinning is: the the; of the of the; all the all the; and so on. Some are big examples, but always doubled.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
As I have done it myself several times, I felt that it is possible that it is either that I was in a hurry, or that there is something more strange that is going on - possibly to do with the mind. It doesn't happen just now and then, it is happening to many writers, both online and off. In nationally syndicated newspapers also.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
Magical twinning of the sentences

SEU:- They were talking about these vary points on Sky news as though it's a burden, if you have collected thousands of the twinning of the words, make a a little book of the magical twinning of the words as spoken in every day spoken conversation, you never know your collection might be unique as it might get a Guinness book of records to add to it selling point
It will certainly help children's language as they like magical sentences!
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
Optical clocks use light rather than microwaves but is impossible to be unaffected by gravity


Optical (visible light wavelengths) is a shorter wavelength of frequency than micro-waves therefore can be tuned to be more accurate. But your right, they are impossible to be unaffected by gravity but for a different reason, in this case it is called GRAVITATIONAL LENSING (PHOTON DEFLECTION), but the error is much smaller.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
When I do this, I copy the URL to identify where the sentences occurred; then I copy the sentence itself; and then I type the twins. like so:

http://www.dailym...9mq4Up9y
The skulls of nine women had been squeezed from infancy using binding or wooden wooden blocks for aesthetic reasons 
wooden wooden

https://phys.org/...ual.html
If the earth were the same density throughout, and we were to divide it into 10 layers, the outer layer would feel the gravity from all 9 inner layers inner layers and would add 9 units of pressure.
inner layers inner layers
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
If you want to confirm those two links, just type the word into your Find app to make it easier. It happens even in physorg articles or in the forum. I can understand that a simple word like "the" could be twinned, but there are too many 2 and 3 word - sometimes 4 word twinning. I just don't understand why it happens.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Hi Benni

@granville

Here are 2 more from physorg:

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Although in Oregon the collisions tend to be with Possums, and the Chicken crossed the road to prove to the prove to the possum it could be done! Hard to do much science with colliding Possums though, too many of the particles play dead!
prove to the prove to the

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
inido: "In my theory theory they were even caused with the same mechanism - the passage of solar system through dark matter cloud at the galactic plane."
theory theory
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2018
' Black holes are objects with such strong gravitational fields that not even light travels quickly enough to escape their grasp, '

so now they have finally caught up with my research

https://www.scrib...savvys84

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.