Haven't posted here in a while, but after posting this in a few Discords, I thought I should put it here as well.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8
So "transportable optical lattice clocks" are synchronized at the same location & altitude.
Then one is moved to a location 450m higher in the building.
and "BINGO, we told ya SO" the subsequent minuscule changes to sync of the super sensitive equipment are AUTOMATICALLY attributed to Gravity & Relativity.
Hmmmmmm...
Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that an approx. 45KV atmospheric voltage gradient from their comparative altitudes,
as well as other possible influences (From the EM of surrounding machinery to that area's local GEC effects)
might, just MIGHT mind ya...
be the source of influence on the "18-digit-precision" of the devices????
Relativity "proven" by sync loss of lattice clocks?
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am
Re: Relativity "proven" by sync loss of lattice clocks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytree_T ... asting_use
Besides the obvious electrical potential in altitudes changes, the noise factor in the area alone must be ludicrous. Is this again another 'black hole photo' and 'gravity wave' attempt of pre-conditioned algorithms finding the signal they expect from a white canvas. Or this case, a single ion doing the Wiggles.
Still looking for a picture of the laser cooling rolling q-ion-trap crate they lifting into the sky.
Besides the obvious electrical potential in altitudes changes, the noise factor in the area alone must be ludicrous. Is this again another 'black hole photo' and 'gravity wave' attempt of pre-conditioned algorithms finding the signal they expect from a white canvas. Or this case, a single ion doing the Wiggles.
Still looking for a picture of the laser cooling rolling q-ion-trap crate they lifting into the sky.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:41 pm
Re: Relativity "proven" by sync loss of lattice clocks?
Perhaps not to prove General Relativity but to gage the clock?
-
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm
Re: Relativity "proven" by sync loss of lattice clocks?
Did the Jap team prove Einstein to the tune of 1 cm in 450 m elevation?
Chou et al --- Sept 2010 -- Optical Clocks and Relativity -- Science vol 329.
There were 2 atomic clocks in adjoining labs.
The 13 samples of frequency difference before raising one by 33 cm had an overall data range of 146 cm.
The 5 samples after raising by 33 cm had an overall data range of 102 cm.
The above ranges were scaled by me based on the difference of their reported sample averages before/after representing an elevation change of 33 cm.
Each of the 18 data points had a (by them) estimated error range of 54 cm (plus or minus 27 cm).
Each of the 18 samples consisted of ??? readings taken over 8000 seconds (133 1/3 minutes).
The tests occupied 140000 sec, ie 38.9 hr.
They calculated that the results indicated an elevation change of 37 cm plus or minus 15 cm, which is close to the actual of 33 cm.
I reckon that plus or minus 37 cm would be closer to the truth. In other words they proved very little.
The overall data ranges of 146 cm & 102 cm indicate to me that there are some major diurnal effects happening, linked mainly to the aetherwind, which is affected by Earth's spin & orbit etc. This can be seen by their almost sinusoidal spread of results, whereby the ups & downs dwarf their supposed signal, & the ups & downs are well outside the limits of their error bars. But did they address this elephant in the room? No, they didn't, their mission was to prove Einstein's GTR.
So, how did the Jap team fare????
Chou et al --- Sept 2010 -- Optical Clocks and Relativity -- Science vol 329.
There were 2 atomic clocks in adjoining labs.
The 13 samples of frequency difference before raising one by 33 cm had an overall data range of 146 cm.
The 5 samples after raising by 33 cm had an overall data range of 102 cm.
The above ranges were scaled by me based on the difference of their reported sample averages before/after representing an elevation change of 33 cm.
Each of the 18 data points had a (by them) estimated error range of 54 cm (plus or minus 27 cm).
Each of the 18 samples consisted of ??? readings taken over 8000 seconds (133 1/3 minutes).
The tests occupied 140000 sec, ie 38.9 hr.
They calculated that the results indicated an elevation change of 37 cm plus or minus 15 cm, which is close to the actual of 33 cm.
I reckon that plus or minus 37 cm would be closer to the truth. In other words they proved very little.
The overall data ranges of 146 cm & 102 cm indicate to me that there are some major diurnal effects happening, linked mainly to the aetherwind, which is affected by Earth's spin & orbit etc. This can be seen by their almost sinusoidal spread of results, whereby the ups & downs dwarf their supposed signal, & the ups & downs are well outside the limits of their error bars. But did they address this elephant in the room? No, they didn't, their mission was to prove Einstein's GTR.
So, how did the Jap team fare????
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests