Existence

Well, this is almost right if one understands why. This is not correct.The clocks you are speaking of are cesium-cascade clocks. They "tick" at the same rate regardless of anything. 9,192,631,770 ticks per second.The difference is that from the reference frame of Greenwich the Boulder clock appears to tick faster, while from the Boulder reference the Greenwich clock appears to tick slower.Look at cesium-cascade clocks. Understand how they operate.The difference is, as you say, due to gravity, but how? why?Since the electrons in the cesium atoms all follow the same physical laws regardless of their reference frame, why is there a difference?Because gravity actually affects time. In a gravity well all physical processes, electron states, your heart rate, a perfect metronome, everything slows down compared to a reference frame outside the gravity well. This is time dilation. Time is relative between reference frames.So our clock in Boulder is "ticking" at the exact same rate as the clock in Greewich: 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The difference is that the "second" is dilated between the two locations by the effect of gravity. And both are correct.

As I stated, this is almost right. A lack of complete understanding of the situation leads one to assume their faulty pronouncement is correct.First, "belief" is your realm in religion and has no place in a science discussion. But "understanding" more accurately informs the interpretation of the facts to arrive at the reality.Second, your distain for understanding the reality of this situation has led you to, again, make pronouncements that can only be described as foolish.Stop doing that, ICANT. Because in a cesium cascade clock the "tick rate" is not adjustable. It is the natural frequency of the cesium atom which is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.In your source, the "tick rate", which is a bad choice of words in this case, is not adjustable either. The clocks tick at the same rate (1.12 x 10¹⁵ times per second). Raising one clock a few centimeters causes them to move out of phase with each other. They are both still measuring a "second", but the difference in altitude (the difference in the gravitational field) has caused a dilation of the "second" being measured. Again, your distain for understanding has caused you to quote mine completely out of context. You saw the words,"The result is an observation time of about one second, which is limited only by the force of gravity pulling the atoms to the ground"and assumed you had your piece of evidence without any understanding of what was being said and why.The longer cascade of the NIST-F1 (the observation time of about 1 second) is not the clock tick by which they measure time.It is a mechanism that allows the operators to more quickly and more accurately tune the microwave frequency that causes the cluster of cesium atoms to fluoresce at their natural frequency of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. This frequency, not the bobbing up and down of the cluster in the fountain and whatever effect gravity may have on this observation time, this frequency of the fluorescence at 9,192,631,770 times per second is the tick/tock of the clock.This "observation time" limited by gravity (longer in Boulder, shorter in Greenwich) has no effect on the natural cycle of the cesium atom. The gravitational effect on the physical processes which produce the natural cesium frequency is time dilation, not the observation time to tune the microwaves. Quite the contrary. It is you with your distain for understanding that does not know what they are talking about.Back to the issue. That is just the issue ICANT. No, they do not. Time (the "second") is dilated between the two frames (Boulder and Greenwich). See Relativity of Simultaneity[aside]Just for those who may desire a more complete understanding, our species has defined the "second" 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 cesium-133 atom. Wherever there is a properly tuned and functioning cesium clock, regardless of gravity position or acceleration, 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium atom is, by definition, a second.[/aside]ICANT, what the experiments with the clocks show, what your own sources have shown, is that time is relative between frames of reference. Those frames deeper in a gravity well or at higher acceleration will measure a "second" differently (note: not errantly) from those frames in lesser gravity or slower acceleration.This is time dilation. This is what General Relativity has predicted and it is precisely what these clocks and experiments have shown. Edited by AZPaul3, : Added referenceEdited by AZPaul3, : additional explanation

Page 3, Section 2.3 Relavant Relativity

quote:

---

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.

---

Thes rest of the section details the relativistic corrections necessary and (more importantly, though I imagine you will neglect this) why.

The clock itself is not adjusted. The time output from the clock is adjusted before being placed in the transmitted message. The cesium clock ticks at its natural rate. That rate cannot be adjusted. You were supposed to have studied cesium clocks and the way they operate. Especially the NIST-F1 at Boulder. You should be able to answer this question on your own."Tuning" in relation to the NIST-F1 involves varying (thus "tuning")the microwave frequency until the cluster of cesium atoms fluoreses at its natural frequency. It does not refer to tuning the clock rate itself, but to the process that brings the clock to the point where we can begin to count the clock rate which is always 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. OK. So if you don't care why the output adjustments need to be made (Time Dilation per GR) for GPS to work then why are you even in this discussion?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.------------------------------------------------------------Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.------------------------------------------------------------ Well, you're half right.

No, ICANT. Gravity cannot change the frequency. Nor can temperature.As for temperature, both it and humidity affect the apparatus and can disrupt a proper reading of the frequency measure (not the frequency itself but the apparatus reading the frequency). That is why these clocks are placed under controlled environmental conditions.As for gravity, again, ICANT, the point being made is that gravity does not affect the frequency of the cesium atoms. The appearent differences seen between reference frames is an actual difference in time itself.There is no absolute time. There is no favored frame of reference by which we can say a clock is slow or fast. There are only observed differences between frames. And since there can be no absolute special frame of reference by which to measure we cannot say that one frame's clock is right and another frame's clock is wrong.The cesium atom ticks at the same rate within a reference frame as it does within any other reference frame. Any observed difference we may see from outside the reference frame of the clock is due to time dilation. You are.I see where NoNukes has already answered this.And I see where you then go on to say: If the extent of your most basic knowledge of reality is that gravity is a magnetic field then there is no hope in trying to explain reality to someone so massively screwed up.I'm done here.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No, they did not say that. They said they had to adjust the clock's output signals to account for differences due to ... tada ... time dilation.That is because "correct time" does not exist. "Correct" according to who? Where? Even on the planet surface the measurment of time differs depending on the gavitational field. No one can say one is "correct" while all others are errant. There is no "correct" time, just differences that need to be accounted for between frames. And every physicist, clock maker, navy and astonomer in the world disagrees with you. Do you ever wonder why?

No, ICANT. I am right. I certainly did. I even read the full section. In fact I read the entire paper.Guess what? They said exactly what I said. You did not read the paper with any comprehension or you could not have missed this.I asked some specific questions in Message 369.Care to answer these?

Wow. Your comprehension of the obvious is really bad.It's an illustration, ICANT. It is meant to convey a useful idea.If it helps ease your tired mind a bit just think of this as being played in your head in very, very slow motion.-------------------------------------------------------------------I just thought of something.ICANT, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really this dense?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So he's not really this stupid but he is pulling our leg?The least he could have done is to put a smiley face in there.Unless your saying he is deliberately lying being intellectually dishonest and an insufferable troll. He gets his jollies from appearing to all the world to be as dumb as a stump?Why would anyone do this? Does the man have no pride?

Your Message 425. Way to go Nukes!

Message 431No, CS, the man really is that stupid.

Einstein's 2nd postulate states the measured velocity will be c regardless of the motion of the source. It says nothing about the trajectory of the light beam.

You can assume anything you want and most probably be wrong.This does not alter the fact that Einstein's Section 2, principle 2, deals only with the measured velocity of the light not the path of the light beam.Your insistence that somehow Sec 2, p 2 is violated by some contrived circumstance dealing with the light path is wrong.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This is the incorrect part. To the outside observer the beam of light appears to move with the direction of the train.Take one photon of light. Just a single photon. To you standing next to the clock the photon as it travels moves up only:*
*
*
*
*To the outside observer the photon also moves in the direction of travel:

*
                *
            *
         *
      *

This does not violate Einstein's principle since the measured velocity, the speed of the photon, is always c for both observers.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.