Existence

ICANT, your source does not prove your point at all.The article says that the 'observation time' is limited by the force of gravity. The observation time is not the length of a second as measured by the clock. The observation time is the time the cesium atoms spend in the microwave cavity which is a part of the detector for picking out the frequency. Longer observation times simply make the clock work better by making it easier to tune into the hyperfine frequency rather than other spurious unrelated frequencies.But the size of the observation time has nothing to do with the hyperfine frequency generated by the cesium atoms. The frequency generated would be the same if the observation time were doubled.From the same source.

quote:

---

As you might guess, the longer observation times make it easier to tune the microwave frequency. The improved tuning of the microwave frequency leads to a better realisation and control of the resonance frequency of caesium. And of course, the improved frequency control leads to what is one of the world's most accurate clocks.

---

Congrats on your citation of Hatch. You've finally quoted a non-crack pot. Some scientists do subscribe to the Lorentz Ether Theory explanation of special relativity. About the only thing controversial in the paper is Hatch's claim that SR and LET can be distinguished experimentally.Under LET, the twin paradox still exists, although its explanation is a little different. You'll need to stop denying that phenomenon if you want to hang your hat on LET.

Hi NoNukes, Then please explain my point to me.I thought my point was that the stronger the force of gravity was the slower the clock would run.Which would mean that the weaker the force of gravity was the faster the clock would run.If we put the atomic clock in a GPS satellite and make no adjustments to the clock frequency it will be observed to run faster than the clock on the ground.It does not say anything about it affecting time and making time past slower the stronger the gravity force is.Gravity affects the mechanism not the passage of duration that is measured with our concept of time. Why do I have to hang my hat on anything?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes, I understand that to be your point. But the reference does not even address that issue. You are confusing 'observation time' with the clock rate. Do you understand what 'observation time' means in the context of the reference? Increased observation time increases clock stability, but not clock rate. The reference indicates that the 'observation time' is limited by gravity. The implication is that higher gravity results in shorter observation times. If your confused thinking were correct, then gravity would have the opposite effect on clock rate than the one you are claiming. But of course that is wrong. You simply misread the reference. Assuming that you are observing from the ground, you are correct. But the issue is simply not addressed in the reference; at least not in the part you quoted. And let's be clear about one other point. Cesium clocks generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. That frequency is not adjustable. If it were, then we could not define time based on the frequency without specifying every other influencing variable. Because you are the one citing the Hatch's paper. The Hatch's conclusion is based on LET. If LET is wrong, then his statements based on LET are unsupported.And as has been pointed out, experiments show that Hatch's prediction was wrong. If LET and SR can be distinguished experimentally as Hatch claims, then his prediction based on LET is wrong, and he has failed to disprove SR/GR.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes, Did you miss reading this in Message 235:

quote:

---

2.3 Relevant Relativity
Several relativistic effects have already been incorporated into the GPS system so, for the ordinary user of broadcast ephemerides, only two relativistic corrections must be considered. First, the receiver must apply a correction to the transmitted time to account
for relativistic effects arising from orbit eccentricity of the transmitting satellite, This is the At, term defined in the ICD. Second, the finite and universally constant speed c of signals propagating in a vacuum from a transmitter to a receiver, relative to an inertial frame (the geometric path delay), must be accounted for. The receiver must also account for ionosplieric aiid tiqmqAicric: delay corrc‘c tioils, wliicli we do iiot consider here.
Three relativistic effects are gernime to GPS. Rates of clocks in GPS are adjusted (as they are for International Atomic Time) to match the rate that clocks would run on the geoid of the earth. The geoid is a surface of constant, gravitational potential in the rotating frame in which the effects (2) and (3) described below add to a constant value.
The three relativity effects are as follows.
(1) Constancy of the speed of light and relativity of synchronization. GPS time is defined using the principle of the constancy of c to synchronize an imagined system of clocks everywhere in space in the neighborhood of the earth (this is called Einstein syn-
chronization). GPS satellite clocks are in principle adjusted to agree with this imagined system of clocks. This network of synchronized GPS clocks realizes a coordinute time, a system of self-consistent time markers with which to label events. This definition of GPS
time requires a locally inertial coordinate system. GPS time is thus defined relative to an earth-centered inertial coordinate system (an ECIF), but the rate is set to match the rate at which clocks would run on the geoid. An ECIF is also used to simplify the paths of signals propagating from satellites, since, with sufficient accuracy for GPS, light travels in Euclidean straight lilies at the speed c iii vacuuiii relative to such inertial frames [a].
(2) Second-older Doppler shift. A clock moving with respect to an ECIF runs slower relative to coordinate time in that ECIF than if it were at, rest in the ECIF. This is the time dilation effect due to the magnitude of the relative velocity, sometimes called the
second-order Doppler effect. For satellites in GPS orbits, the fractional frequency offset needed to compensate for this is approximately +8.3 x relative to the rate of clocks on the earth’s geoid.
(3) Gravitational frequency shift. A clock at rest in a lower gravitational potential runs slower relative to coordinate time than if it were at rest in a higher potential. This is called the gravitational red shift. Thus, standard clocks closer to the earth run slower than standard clocks farther away, since the gravitational potential becomes more negative closer to the earth. Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface. Thus GPS satellite clock frequencies need to be adjusted by a fraction of about -5.3 x lo-’’ relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect. To compensate for the relativistic effects described in paragraphs (2) an (3) above for circular orbits, and as a consequence of the requirement that GPS satellite clocks run at the rate’that a standard clock on the geoid would run, atomic clocks in GPS satellites are given a fixed fractional frequency offset of -4.4645 x 10-l’. The user does not have to be concerned about these rate corrections.

---

Source page 3
Emphasis mine.Rates of clocks in GPS are adjusted (as they are for International Atomic Time) to match the rate that clocks would run on the geoid of the earth.GPS time is thus defined relative to an earth-centered inertial coordinate system (an ECIF), but the rate is set to match the rate at which clocks would run on the geoid.Thus, standard clocks closer to the earth run slower than standard clocks farther away, since the gravitational potential becomes more negative closer to the earth. Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface. Thus GPS satellite clock frequencies need to be adjusted by a fraction of about -5.3 x lo-’’ relative to the earth’s geoid, to compensate for this effect.Now I could be mistaken when I say the clocks on GPS satellites frequencies are adjusted to match the clock on the earth's surface.I may also be mistaken when I say the clocks on GPS satellites if not adjusted will tick faster than the clock on the earth's surface.I may also be mistaken when I say the rates of clocks in GPs are adjusted to match the rate that clocks would run on the geoid of the earth.I may be mistaken when I say that gravity is responsible for the difference in the frequency rate of the clock on the surface of the earth and the clock on the GPS satellite.I may be mistaken when I say that gravity affects the frequency of the clocks but does not make time pass faster because the clocks frequency runs faster.But if I am wrong then the people that built the GPS system who wrote the article quoted is wrong. But his conclusion is based on MLET.Now as to some of his statements.

quote:

---

The Sagnac Effect
There are probably more conflicting opinions expressed about the Sagnac effect than any other "relativistic" effect. The review here of the Sagnac effect will be brief. The reader is referred to Hayden and Whitney [7] for a more comprehensive discussion of the effect. The most commonly held erroneous belief is that the effect is caused by rotation.
Ashby states:
In the rotating frame of reference, light will not appear to go in all directions in straight lines with speed c. The frame is not an inertial frame, so the principle of the constancy of the speed of light does not strictly apply. Instead, electromagnetic signals traversing a closed path will take a different amount of time to complete the circuit.
In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error.

---

The Sagnac effect disproves SR.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The clock rate is not adjusted by adjusting the atomic frequency. We've discussed this already. Do the people in the article say anything about adjusting the frequency of the microwave radiation emitted by the cesium atom?No they don't. The adjustment must be made elsewhere (e.g. in the frequency divider that produces the 5 or 10MHz frequency) or by adding an amount to the accumulated count. At least that's what Hatch claims. But it does not appear that the predictions of the theory Hatch supports matches the experimental results that confirm GR. Something is wrong with Hatch's analysis. I have no clue what.Edited by NoNukes, : fix tags

Hi NoNukes, You have asserted many things.In Message 316 You said:

quote:

---

Longer observation times simply make the clock work better by making it easier to tune into the hyperfine frequency rather than other spurious unrelated frequencies.

---

What hyperfine frequency are you talking about being tuned?This statement from my original source a couple of paragraphs down:

quote:

---

As you might guess, the longer observation times make it easier to tune the microwave frequency. The improved tuning of the microwave frequency leads to a better realization and control of the resonance frequency of cesium. And of course, the improved frequency control leads to what is one of the world's most accurate clocks.

---

SourceWhat is the need to control the resonance frequency of the ceslum if is not adjustable?Why does the ceslum atom have a need to be excited by a microwave frequency for if the frequency can not be changed?Why are some of the atoms not used because they have the wrong frequency?

quote:

---

Up until 1967 the second was defined as 1⁄86 400 of the mean solar day.... Since 1967 the second has been defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

---

If the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz. is a perfect measurment of duration, why does leap seconds have to be added to the atomic clocks at irregular intervals to synchronize the clock with the earths rotation? The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with Hatch's theory or his predictions.The GPS satellite is in motion and my GPS receiver in my dash is in motion.

quote:

---

The experimental evidence shows that the gravitational potential affects: (1) the rate at which clocks run;...

​

Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an
observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error.

---

SourceThe Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light.SR says the speed of light is always isotropic with respect to the observer.The 2 can not co-exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The Sagnac effect is not the result of a non-isotropic speed of light, because the speed of light is the same for all observers - i.e., it is isotropic.The Sagnac effect can not be the result of something that is impossible, by definition. The Sagnac effect is the result of special relativity, not a contradiction of it, and it's caused by the rotation of the light path with reference to the stationary detector system. The light path and detector are in different inertial reference frames, so it is a natural consequence of SR that an interference effect is produced.The Sagnac effect confirms SR, it doesn't contradict it.

I did not just assert this. I backed it up with a quote from your source. Yikes. You should be able to answer this question yourself.The special frequency that forms the basis of the cesium clock is emitted by the transition between two hyperfine ground level energy states in a cesium atom. The difference in energy levels corresponds to a frequency of 9,192,631,770 hertz.Cesium atoms can have other energy states, and transitions between them can generate other frequencies. A proper clock must tune out the unwanted frequencies and tune into the proper one. Hopefully you can now answer all of these questions yourself. The operation of the clock is explained very well in your reference. This question has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of clocks or relativity.From the wikipedia article on leap seconds

quote:

---

The leap second adjustment (which is approximately 0.6 seconds per year) is necessary because of the difference between the length of the SI day (based on the mean solar day between 1750 and 1892) and the length of the current mean solar day (which is about 0.002 seconds longer). The difference between these two will increase with time, but only by 0.0017 seconds per century. In other words, the adjustment is required because we have decoupled the definition of the second from the current rotational period of the Earth. The actual rotational period varies due to unpredictable factors such as the motion of mass within Earth, and has to be observed rather than computed.

---

True. And this is merely what Hatch believes to be true. I see that another poster has addressed this better than I can.

Hi NoNukes, This is the reason I asked the question as I wanted your answer.The assertion I was refering to was what you said in Message 320: So if atoms can have other energy states those that have a different frequency than the one set by international decree as representing a second could be chosen in the GPS clock to represent a second with the tick rate equal to the earthbound clock.The tick rate of the GPS clocks and the earthbound clock has to match for the GPS system to work.Then the Sagnac effect has to be accounted for which is done in the GPS receiver in my car, for it to tell me where I am at, and what speed I am traveling. But it has everything to do with what 'time' is.9,192,631,770 Hz is not time as some have asserted neither is it a second. 9,192,631,770 Hz is what has been agreed upon as a second by the international community.Making the second a concept invented by mankind to measure duration of events or between events. Actually it agrees with:Michelson's paper of 1904: Relative motion of Earth and Ether.
Sagnac's experiment. Which disproves relativity.
The Michelson Gale experiment (1925). Their data show clearly that c_m, is not a Universal Constant.Is the speed of c constant?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, What stationary detector system?There is nothing in the universe that is stationary, everything is in constant motion.The Sagnac effect is the result of the GPS satellites movement and the movement of the GPS receiver on the ground.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In the Sagnac interferometer.You do understand what the Sagnac effect is, right? Oh, no, in fact, you don't.No, the Sagnac effect is the interference that results when a ring laser system is rotated.

quote:

---

The Sagnac effect (also called Sagnac interference), named after French physicist Georges Sagnac, is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation. The Sagnac effect manifests itself in a setup called ring interferometry. A beam of light is split and the two beams are made to follow a trajectory in opposite directions. To act as a ring the trajectory must enclose an area. On return to the point of entry the light is allowed to exit the apparatus in such a way that an interference pattern is obtained. The position of the interference fringes is dependent on the angular velocity of the setup. This arrangement is also called a Sagnac interferometer.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

No, they cannot be used. The hyperfine frequency is chosen because it is particularly stable. The suggestion that it is a random choice out of all the possible frequencies emitted by the cesium atom is inane.But more importantly, it misses the point. You cannot adjust one cesium clock to match another cesium clock by tuning in a different emission/absorption spectrum line produced by cesium. So what? I believe I've already acknowledged this point. Remember the discussion about your l'il Tom Tom? This is of no relevance at all. What is relevant is what causes the effect. I believe you really mean that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium hyperfine microwave radiation is not one second.This line of argument going nowhere. You are simply reiterating your belief that clocks can slow or speed up but that time cannot appear to be slower as viewed in another reference frame.But none of your description regarding the definition of a second is incompatible with GR or SR. It's totally irrelevant. All clocks and all processes show time dilation phenomena of the same magnitude when the clocks are in relative motion with regards to each other even without the influence of a gravitational field. I'm not sure what you would predict happens in that situation. Before Einstein's paper was even published? Your claim is highly dubious. Please support this claim. That's not how the experiment is described in Wikipedia. Why don't you provide a reference for your statement that the experiment disproves SR and we can discuss it.Michelson—Gale—Pearson experiment - Wikipedia

quote:

---

According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity, and it contradicts the hypothesis of complete aether drag. On the other hand, the stationary ether concept (except Lorentz's ether) contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus special relativity is the only theory which explains both experiments

---

Hi crash, It seems like I understand it a little better than you do.In fact you can't even read your own quote. emphasis added.This is talking about an interferometer that the experiment can be run in that the Sagnac effect is manifest in.The cause of the Sagnac effect is the fact when I am using my GPS I am not in the same frame as the clock in Boulder which is the chosen isotropic light-speed frame.All the GPS atomic clocks in the satellites are tuned to tick with the atomic clock in Boulder, which makes the clock in Boulder in the isotropic light-speed frame.The special theory requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer.Since I am not in that frame I am in a non-isotropic speed of light frame.The adjustments have to be made in the software in the GPS receiver that is in my car to account for this before it can tell me where I am and what speed I am going. Mr Hatch that I have quoted upthread is responsible for much of that software as well as the Hatch filter.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well, right. And the reason that it manifests in a Sagnac interferometer - and not, say, a hot cup of tea - is because the Sagnac effect is a consequence of the optical path and the detector being in different reference frames due to the ring system being in rotation, and a Sagnac interferometer is just such a device that has a rotating optical path and a stationary detector system. Well, no. None of the GPS clocks in the satellites are ticking at the same rate as the clock in Boulder, they're ticking a little bit faster because the clock in Boulder - indeed all clocks on the Earth's surface - are experiencing time dilation. The clocks in the satellites are brought back into synchronization by the very simple trick of treating a second in orbit as longer than one on Earth. Regardless of your frame of reference, the speed of light is the same for all observers. This is both a fundamental mathematical conclusion of the Maxwell equations - which you have not refuted - and an observation that has been made many hundreds of thousands of times with the same result each time.The Sagnac effect is a consequence of special relativity; it's not a contradiction of it. The adjustments have to be made as a function of the fact that you're experiencing time dilation as a result of living on the Earth's surface, and the Sagnac effect as a result of living on a rotating planet. Time dilation affects the relative rates of clocks on Earth and in space, and the Sagnac effect affects the frequency of transmissions between satellites and the Earth.

Hi NoNukes, However the clocks are tuned, adjusted, manipulated, or controled they tick at the same rate as the clock on the ground. I know you believe time dilates so why don't you explain what Taq failed to explain to me.In Message 307 to Taq I stated:

quote:

---

I pull out my space cycle that I built in another thread and accelerate away from my wife at 1/2 c towards a planet that is exactly 1 light year including original acceleration to the half way point around the planet. She is 6 months younger than I am. I travel for two years which puts me 1 light year away half way into my turning around with no reduction in speed. The image of my turn around is 1 light year away from my wife so by the time the image of my turn around reachers her I am half way back. So she can observe all of my trip out but only half of my return trip which will seem to her that I am traveling at c when I am only traveling at 1/2 c. So she would view my out bound trip as 2 years and my return trip as 1 year, because she would miss half the return trip, because I was half way back when she saw my turn around. Thus we both would age 4 years during the trip.

​

If the speed of c is constant how could I close the gap between our ages?

---

Taq informs me the time would not be the same for both of us because of time dilation.In Message 314 to Taq I stated:

quote:

---

I am traveling at 1/2 c it takes exactly 2 years to reach the middle of my turn around without slowing down.

​

I continue my journey at 1/2 c which takes exactly 2 years to return to earth.

​

So explain to me how I can experience less than 4 years if c is constant?

---

So if time dilation is true explain to me how I can experience less than 4 years if c is constant. You can find the information here.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."