swansont

That's likely for a theoretical flight with some given parameters (probably same speed E and W) In the Science paper (Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168) based on the actual flight parameters, the predictions give gravitational, kinematic and net effects The paper after that one gives the experimental results. I'm not sure why you would expect confirmation to happen pre-experiment. Predictions are the values expected from theory. Not at all. You can run the numbers yourself Once again, the relativistic effects only depend on the orbital/flight parameters, so there's no legitimate reason to expect new values if a different type of clock is used. Part of Einstein's theory is that the type of atom has no effect (Equivalence principle - effect of gravity does not depend on the composition of the matter)

You fail, once again, to specify what frequency. More than one component in an atomic clock has a frequency. Skimping on info isn’t the right tactic if you want to convince people. Why don’t we see this effect with co-located clocks of different species as atmospheric pressure changes?

As I said, it’s the quartz oscillator, at 10.23 MHz, that’s adjusted. The Ashby reference says this. You should have read the whole thing, because it also gives the follwing story about the shift “There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! 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 general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.” Those numbers are figments of your imagination, which is why they aren’t in the literature. The Ashby reference is from 2003, and is well-known. No need for later references to explain it. And proper references would include authors and journal names. Can’t check them with the scant info you’ve given It’s in the one reference you provided. Look near equation 36 You put this in quotes, and yet I never wrote that sentence.

Really? “Environmental conditions can affect them. High pressure? Lab data backs it: crank pressure up a torr, and frequency drops ~0.1 Hz.” Sounds like atmospheric pressure to me. You say if pressure cranks up a torr, frequency will drop by ~0.1 Hz. But there’s no citation to where this information came from, and you don’t specify what frequency changes. Your later calculation suggests it’s the transition frequency of the atoms. Which are in vacuum, so that would be a neat trick. But if pressure cranks up a torr, that’s about 1/760 of an atmosphere - a little more than 1%. But it routinely varies by about 25x that owing to weather, and we don’t see effects from it. You are making stuff up and/or grossly misunderstanding the details. Without knowing where you got your “information” it’s hard to assess how much of each.

That’s a shift in the quartz oscillator frequency, and is there because of relativity. Not pressure.

Where is this rerun? You’ve not provided a single citation to an actual experiment. Clocks in orbit - no pressure at all - don’t see the differing shifts you predict. GPS works. Galileo works. Other satnav systems work. This falsifies your premise. If you support falsifiability, you must abandon your conjecture. They are the timing errors you’d get for a 10Hz shift in the transition frequency for Cs, Rb and H. They signify being pulled out of the OP’s ass, on the idea that changing ambient pressure would shift the frequencies. That’s nonsense, of course. Atmospheric pressure changes without having to go into an airplane or satellite, because it changes over the course of a day and with weather. If that affected atomic clocks differently, then a site with Rb, Cs and H clocks (say, the US Naval Observatory) would see such behavior, and timing wouldn’t work. No such behavior is observed - not at that scale, at least. Quartz oscillators and electronics have some small susceptibility to it, but it’s nowhere close to this level.

But they were different kinds of clocks, as I said. In addition, DSAC used a mercury ion clock Different gravity? How does gravity differ going east vs west? Centrifugal force? (it would be centripetal, since we analyze in an inertial reference frame, and the centripetal force would be that of gravity) Reference? And this would be different going east vs west? hand-waving isn't going to convince anyone who understands physics. All of the types of clocks behaving the same way is a problem for relativity? Sealioning and this strawman doesn't serve you well. If you had some effect that gave you a constant offset frequency, there might be an issue. But all you've done is make something up, and that's certainly not a problem. I'm no longer surprised that people think LLMs give universally trustworthy answers. Just disappointed, since there's so much evidence to the contrary. You haven't actually presented any science here. Just assertions, with nothing to back them up.

Some of them already have. Gabbard's testimony changed from one day to the next, in addition to being evasive. Avoiding a paper trail is something that was reported to be in Project 2025, and skirting the rules about government records happened during Trump I

Radio clock? In that you are synchronizing to a remote source? You can't say that they tick at the same rate regardless of where they are, since you aren't relying on that clock, you're relying on the remote one. And you will notice that they get out of synch faster depending on where you are in a gravity well or how fast you move. If they didn't, you wouldn't have to continually reset them Exactly. It's not the local clock that's telling you the time, it's the remote one. Your notion that it doesn't vary with the location is a misrepresentation.

I didn’t claim that falsifiability does not apply. If you experimentally confirm something a thousand times, one outlier points to a flaw in that particular experiment. You’d need to explain why the thousand experiments just happened to work. Nope. See above. Nothing dogmatic about statistics. If you’re just going to manufacture strawman statements, it just points to you having an agenda. It’s not at all subtle.

Considering that these (or their equivalent) have already been done, it would point to a flaw in your experiment Various satellite navigation systems (e.g. GPS, Galileo) use different types of clocks, including cesium, rubidium and hydrogen masers. They work, and must account for relativity to do so. Relativity has been confirmed to an absurd degree, and when you can build technology based on it, you’re well past the point where you’ve any non-delusional expectation that you’re going to falsify the underlying science.

We only had ~50 years of testing the validity of relativity before adopting the definition of the second, and another ~15 before defining the meter in terms of c (which includes the Hafele-Keating and Vessot rocket clock confirmations) You’re missing the point about Maxwell’s equation. It’s not a wave equation anymore if c isn’t invariant. It has nothing to do with measuring distances or times. You’re focusing on that but ignoring that it’s not how the experiments are done.

Any realization of the meter would have to account for the non-ideal circumstances of the measurement, such as the index of refraction’s effect on the speed of light. It’s also defined on the geoid and at 0 K, because those are conditions for realizing the second, and you have to make adjustments for not being under those conditions.

No, it doesn’t. Also no. It leverages that fact, but defines the meter in terms of the second and the numerical value of c

That’s something that’s been raised in some critiques of the whole fiasco. Trump didn’t know about the four soldiers missing in Lithuania, either. His disconnect is not surprising (he doesn’t care, unless it’s about him) but seems to be unusual.

In case there was any question, the CENTCOM classification guide says that both the starting time/date for a mission/operation, and schedules, are classified at the “secret” level https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/dod/r380-14.pdf (I-3, numbers 15 and 16) Declassify happens after mission is over

“All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George E. P. Box

Right. They just used the measured solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere rather than calculating it. And a slightly different albedo. Roughly once a month, which you could probably ignore for this calculation, but it also means you can’t just average over the whole surface, so it needs the more sophisticated model you suggest.

The “trusted” here is not that the comms weren’t secure. It was that official American comms would be recorded by the US, as required by law, and they didn’t want that to happen. Much like how using Signal would not leave a record. No “paper trail” of wrongdoing or incompetence (like Vance’s “excellent” comment)

I wonder how long they will try and insist this was a technical issue, rather than PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer)

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Earth_Temperature_without_GHGs#

! Moderator Note We require some kind of model or evidence. What’s you've provided is a science fiction narrative.

In an interview, Goldberg said that the CIA director named a covert operative in the texts. So much for no classified info (not that anyone was buying that)

Yes, it’s defined a particular way, in order to be useful to us. The realization of some constants relies on c being invariant, since we can then pick c to be a defined value. But realizing these constants don’t generally rely on measuring durations, since that would be an intermediate step which would reduce precision. Indeed. And smart people work on these problems, and find ways to do comparisons that don’t have extra biases and errors

Tulsi said she couldn’t address a few points while the situation is under review, which I think translates as “can’t answer until we get together (on signal) and get our stories straight, and have time to also fudge the paperwork”