[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 21, Issue 6

[Doug Marett]

Hi Carl,

    This kind of data is already available from the GPS system, for anyone
to verify on their own, see for example the raw data supplied from the
CDDIS:

https://cddis.nasa.gov/Data_and_Derived_Products/GNSS/daily_30second_data.html

This data allows you to examine directly the propagation time between a GPS
satellite at 20,000 km altitude and a GNSS receiver on the ground knowing
the precise location of both supplied in the data. Since the satellite
clocks are preset before launch to run slower so that they match the earth
clocks (since the satellite clocks would normally run faster at altitude
than earth clocks) the satellite clocks become approximately synchronized
to the earth clocks after correction.Then a further Tsv clock correction is
applied using relativistic equations to continuously compensate for any
additional drift of the satellite clock. If the "experts" were wrong in
their math, then a messed up Tsv correction alone would cause a GPS
position error of up to 5000 meters. In any event, I did a study myself of
the CDDIS GPS data this summer and I found that using all of their
mathematical assumptions, the GPS position error could be as low as a few
cm for any given position solution. In my study, I used over 625,000
individual transmissions across the gravitational gradient to create my
dataset, so I would call that 625,000 individual verifications that the
current assumption that uncorrected satellite clocks count faster at
altitude is correct. So there is no need to re-invent the wheel here...

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Doug

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:54 PM <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:

> Your group thinks about some intereating questions.  It troubles me that
> you rarely seem to explore the actual math toward finding solutions,
> and you tend to "speculate" regarding assumptions that you like.
>
> What you are now  calling "gravitational time dilation" used to be called
> "General Relativity" and the Equivalency principle.
>
> For around 12 years (since 2006), I have tried to suggeat a rather simple
> experiment to some of my fiends at NASA, as well as people at the ESA and
> JAXA.  In a soft-landing on the Moon, just include a generic Cesium clock,
> absolutely identical to one which remains in a  laboratory here on  Earth.
> And provide a radio communications between the two clocks.
>
> The elliptic orbit of the Moon requires a constant adjustment regardinng
> the transmission delay, but that is easy to do accurately.
>
> MY conclusion regardinng your subject is based on Einstein's Equivalency
> principle.  The experiment's' question would be whether the two  clocks
> remained synchronized or whether either of them ran faster than the other
> (due to Equivalence).  As I understand Einstein's reasoning  "the
> gravitational  Equivalence effect" should require the Earth clock to run at
> 10,976 EXTRA ticks every hour (essentially due to the greater gravitational
> field strength here compared to that pn the Moon)
>
> "Everyone" (including all of you) ASSUME that there would be some "time
> dilation" that would  show.  Fine, if that was what that (simple)
> experiment would show.  But if Einstein was right about GR  and more
> specificaally, the Equivalency concept, I would expect that experiment to
> show exactly the OPPOSITE time rate effect fom what "all experts" expect.
> I use EITHER of the two Equivalency equations, either "1 + (a * d/2)/c^2)"
> or the more precise version "(SQR ((1 + v^2/c^2)
>
> Both of these equations predict that the Earth clock should tick 10,976
> times FASTER (due to our stronger gravitational field strength here).
>
> Whenever someone does that experiment, we may know for sure if GR is
> actually true.
>
> In any case, if the two clocks would be synchronized, that woulld  force
> one conclusion (that Einstein was wrong).  If the Earth clock ran slower,
> then you can be fee to argue as to causes of the time dilation.  But I am
> confident that Einstein was basically right about GR, and that Equivalency
> is also true.  In that case, virtually all current assumptions would have
> to be corrected.
>
> Carl Johnson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181206/45d32a7b/attachment.html>