Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662326 > unrolled thread

A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-03 07:26 +0200
    Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Random Kasamatsu Guan <atmmsat@sasmtm.jp> - 2025-04-06 15:32 +0000
      Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-07 12:03 +0200
        Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Nabor Tzarakov <kzan@zabr.ru> - 2025-04-07 13:25 +0000
          Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-07 20:40 +0200
            Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-08 07:58 +0200
              Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-08 21:01 +0200
                Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics ("chronons") Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 21:27 -0700
                  Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics ("chronons") Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 21:50 -0700
                    Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics ("chronons") Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:48 -0700
                Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 08:34 +0200
                  Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-09 09:42 +0200
                    Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 12:31 +0200
                      Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-10 09:58 +0200
                        Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-10 11:21 +0200
        Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-07 17:25 +0200
          Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Benito Grünewald <gace@tehnee.de> - 2025-04-07 17:17 +0000
            Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-08 07:57 +0200
              Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Celestino Schräder <sr@elcsdtg.de> - 2025-04-08 17:43 +0000
                Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 08:17 +0200
                  Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Baldemar Warszawski <ims@sakiawabd.pl> - 2025-04-09 11:01 +0000
    Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-08 20:26 +0200
      Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-08 21:43 +0000
        Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-10 08:07 +0200
          Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-10 11:05 +0000
            Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 07:08 +0200
              Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-11 11:46 +0000
      Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 08:27 +0200
        Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-09 11:50 +0200
          Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 12:44 +0200
            About some brainwashing Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 14:40 +0200
            Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-09 22:52 +0200
              Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-10 07:04 +0200
                Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-10 15:39 +0200
                  Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-10 19:35 +0200
                    Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-10 22:41 +0200
                      Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-10 23:52 +0200
          Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:46 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#662559

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>>> You're a troll on the leash of a piece of shit from Moscow, why would
>>> anyone care what you hate or not.
>> 
>> can't you see the man is german, you stupid polak. Indeed, the gay
>> polakia is a Russian province. You don't know your history, you
>> indolent polak.
>> 
>>>> Time is not about definitions, since it's a dimension
>>>
>>> It absolutely is about definitions, since it's a dimension. All
>>> abstracts are about definitions.
>> 
>> a dimension is not abstract, you puerile deplorable imbecile.
> 
> Yes, it is.

me too. Some of my friends once in transit through gay polakia got their 
luggage stolen. We just can't wait the gay polakia get reunited to Mockba, 
as the proper province, so we dare to visit the territory, whatever is 
there to visit

the gay polaks are traitors, let's say it as it is. Betraying Mockba is 
like betraying your mother and your father. What a shame. Unspeakable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662536

Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

You are wrong.
During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.

The _mean_ solar day is still 86400 seconds
even if the definition of a second has changed.

> 
> 
> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> solar system is measuring the length
> of solar day.

If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
in his telescope would see the angular frequency
of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀

(Newton may have problems with determining what the speed of light is.)

> What is the result predicted
> by the Einsteinian physics?

Newton and Einstein would agree that the moving observer
in the telescope will observe that a mean solar day last
49942 seconds on the observer's clock.

An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
Or won't you?

> One prediction is - 99766. From the
> postulates. The second prediction is -
> 86400. From definition.
> And similiarly with the prediction of
> a measurement of a meridian.

Can you show how you arrive at these numbers?

SR predicts that the Doppler shift is
D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c)). From the postulates.
D = 1.73 So the prediction is 49942 seconds.

> 
> 
> Thank you for your attention, poor
> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

Please explain the subject line.
There must be a reason why you think this falsifies SR?

Or don't you understand your own words?



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662539

Le 08/04/2025 à 20:22, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c)). 

 This equation is entirely correct theoretically and completely logical 
experimentally.

 What has always amazed me, for several years now, is that I have remained 
one of the few to fully trust it, even though the observed effects can 
sometimes be frankly counterintuitive.

 I remind you, once again, why I remain the best relativistic theorist of 
all time (not by my own strength, because I based my work on my 
predecessors, and I confirm that the mathematician Henri Poincaré was the 
greatest and the true founding father of the theory); I am the only one 
who doesn't tremble when writing what he writes:
All the others start to tremble if I ask them how far the Earth is from 
Stella's spacecraft, when Stella has just made its U-turn, over there, at 
Tau Ceti, and is now traveling towards Earth at 0.8c.

The boldest try to answer 7.2 ly, because they assume a contraction of 
distances.

All the others run away, knowing that I will ask them how Stella will be 
able to see the Earth moving towards her for 9 years, with an apparent 
speed of 4c (which is the apparent approach speed of v=0.8c).

No one has ever been able to respond to me except with insults, 
professional defamation, and threats, even a death threat.

Everyone is disoriented by the fact that I apply the principle to the 
fullest, and the equation to the fullest, without this detracting from the 
superb beauty of relativistic theory.

In the example given:
 D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c))=36ly.  

There's no problem with logic or consistency here. Only the limited and 
fearful minds of my opponents, afraid of the consequences of a possible 
acceptance.

They would have to tell themselves that good old Dr. Hachel isn't that 
stupid, and that drives them crazy.

R.H. 

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662587

Am Dienstag000008, 08.04.2025 um 23:43 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 08/04/2025 à 20:22, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> 
>> D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c)). 
> 
> This equation is entirely correct theoretically and completely logical 
> experimentally.
> 
> What has always amazed me, for several years now, is that I have 
> remained one of the few to fully trust it, even though the observed 
> effects can sometimes be frankly counterintuitive.
> 
> I remind you, once again, why I remain the best relativistic theorist of 
> all time (not by my own strength, because I based my work on my 
> predecessors, and I confirm that the mathematician Henri Poincaré was 
> the greatest and the true founding father of the theory); I am the only 
> one who doesn't tremble when writing what he writes:
> All the others start to tremble if I ask them how far the Earth is from 
> Stella's spacecraft, when Stella has just made its U-turn, over there, 
> at Tau Ceti, and is now traveling towards Earth at 0.8c.

Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?

In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot 
could be accelerated.

Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero speed 
and accelerate again.

You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't 
recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called 
'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.

It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that radius 
needed would be rather large.

So deceleration would be mandatory.

Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher 
than two or three g.

But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely 
accelerated and decelerate.

The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a 
round trip.




...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662601

Le 10/04/2025 à 08:06, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?
> 
> In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot 
> could be accelerated.
> 
> Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero speed 
> and accelerate again.
> 
> You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't 
> recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called 
> 'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.
> 
> It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that radius 
> needed would be rather large.
> 
> So deceleration would be mandatory.
> 
> Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher 
> than two or three g.
> 
> But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely 
> accelerated and decelerate.
> 
> The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a 
> round trip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> TH

This is a thought experiment, and we assume that the effects of 
acceleration are not taken into account (which is also true for the 
measured times).
In the classic example of Stella and Terrence, which is world-famous, we 
assume that d=12al (Tau Ceti),
that v=0.8/c on the outward journey, during the U-turn (tangential 
velocity),
and during the return journey.
We assume that the U-turn takes place over a period of 24 hours of proper 
time, which corresponds to 40 Earth hours.
I remind you that this is a thought experiment, and not a test of the 
resistance of human tissue to such accelerations. Now, you absolutely must 
fulfill your role as a lucid poster, and it is important that you ask 
yourself the right questions, which are: 1. Is it true that Dr. Richard 
Hachel is by far the best theorist in the world today, or is he a pure 
charlatan? 2. If he is not a charlatan, how does he come to say that there 
is a tremendous elasticity of lengths and distances in SR that physicists 
themselves have a very poor grasp of? 3. Am I capable of understanding the 
tremendous intellectual upheaval proposed by Richard, and of drawing on 
paper something that even remotely resembles a dilation of distances of 36 
ly when we only talk quickly and very poorly about an opposite contraction 
of 7.2 ly? Am I capable of understanding this stroke of genius by Hachel 
in my self-respecting theoretician's mind? That's the question.
The effects of acceleration are not part of the issue, and not even from a 
measurement perspective (40 hours versus 24 is negligible).

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662634

Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 10/04/2025 à 08:06, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?
>>
>> In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot 
>> could be accelerated.
>>
>> Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero 
>> speed and accelerate again.
>>
>> You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't 
>> recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called 
>> 'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.
>>
>> It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that 
>> radius needed would be rather large.
>>
>> So deceleration would be mandatory.
>>
>> Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher 
>> than two or three g.
>>
>> But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely 
>> accelerated and decelerate.
>>
>> The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a 
>> round trip.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> This is a thought experiment, and we assume that the effects of 
> acceleration are not taken into account (which is also true for the 
> measured times).
> In the classic example of Stella and Terrence, which is world-famous, we 
> assume that d=12al (Tau Ceti),
> that v=0.8/c on the outward journey, during the U-turn (tangential 
> velocity),
> and during the return journey.
> We assume that the U-turn takes place over a period of 24 hours of 
> proper time, which corresponds to 40 Earth hours.
> I remind you that this is a thought experiment, and not a test of the 
> resistance of human tissue to such accelerations. Now, you absolutely 
> must fulfill your role as a lucid poster, and it is important that you 
> ask yourself the right questions, which are: 1. Is it true that Dr. 
> Richard Hachel is by far the best theorist in the world today, or is he 
> a pure charlatan? 2. If he is not a charlatan, how does he come to say 
> that there is a tremendous elasticity of lengths and distances in SR 
> that physicists themselves have a very poor grasp of? 3. Am I capable of 
> understanding the tremendous intellectual upheaval proposed by Richard, 
> and of drawing on paper something that even remotely resembles a 
> dilation of distances of 36 ly when we only talk quickly and very poorly 
> about an opposite contraction of 7.2 ly? Am I capable of understanding 
> this stroke of genius by Hachel in my self-respecting theoretician's 
> mind? That's the question.
> The effects of acceleration are not part of the issue, and not even from 
> a measurement perspective (40 hours versus 24 is negligible).
> 

The entire dammed 'twin paradox' should be dropped, because of the 
nonsense with the 'u-turn in 24 hours'.

Actually light speed is hard to reach for humans, because a somehow 
acceptable acceleration of say two g would require a lifetime of 
acceleration.

Now you would need another lifetime to stop at the far side and yet 
another one to accelerate again from there (plus an additional lifetime 
to stop again at planet Earth).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662643

Le 11/04/2025 à 07:07, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> The entire dammed 'twin paradox' should be dropped, because of the 
> nonsense with the 'u-turn in 24 hours'.
> 
> Actually light speed is hard to reach for humans, because a somehow 
> acceptable acceleration of say two g would require a lifetime of 
> acceleration.
> 
> Now you would need another lifetime to stop at the far side and yet 
> another one to accelerate again from there (plus an additional lifetime 
> to stop again at planet Earth).
> 
> TH

But no!

This is a thought experiment, so we can imagine anything.

Second, particles can have such instantaneous accelerations, and if we 
could test this on them, we would see that it works.

Third, we can stretch the problem by proposing a much longer trajectory. 
For example, we will no longer go around Tau Ceti (12 ly) in 24 hours of 
proper time and 40 hours of Earth time, but we will go around a star 1000 
light-years away, for example.

The acceleration times will have very little impact if we assume an 
acceleration of 10 m/s² (Earth's gravity for a few months) until we 
obtain a constant velocity of 0.8 c. We can neglect the acceleration 
times, and on return, we will obtain a value for the ratio of due to the 
periods of uniform motion close to gamma = 1/0.6.

Each 60-year period in the rocket is equal to a period of 1,100 years on 
Earth.

But that's not the point, because these things are known. The important 
thing, when someone reads me, is to understand what is not currently known 
or well understood, such as the fact that at a speed of v=0.8c, the 
forward path expands three times, and the backward path contracts three 
times, which is logical and obvious if one correctly understands 
relativistic geometry.

And here, incredibly, in the 40 years I've been teaching it, no one is 
capable of understanding such a simple fact.

That's what's important: it's the human inability to grasp a concept that 
a 16-year-old student will easily grasp if I teach it to him, but which 
will completely baffle a Nobel Prize winner in theoretical physics.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662545

W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> 
> You are wrong.
> During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
> 86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.

Oh, really?

So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled?



>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>> solar system is measuring the length
>> of solar day.
> 
> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀

And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
to you?

> An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
> Or won't you?
> 
>> One prediction is - 99766. From the
>> postulates. The second prediction is -
>> 86400. From definition.
>> And similiarly with the prediction of
>> a measurement of a meridian.
> 
> Can you show how you arrive at these numbers?
> 
> SR predicts that the Doppler shift is

But what does it predict as the result of
measurement of the length of a solar day?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662555

Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>> Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>> During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
>> 86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
> 
> Oh, really?

Yes, really. Your ignorance is amazing! :-D

The orbit of the Earth is elliptic so the orbital speed varies.
At perihelion, the speed is highest, and the solar day is longest,
86430 seconds. At aphelion, the speed is slowest and the solar day
will be shortest, 86378 seconds.

The _mean_ solar day is the average of a solar day
through the year. As you know, it is 86400 seconds.
But to find the length of a _mean_ solar day, the varying
length of the solar days had to be measured for a very long time.
This was done at Greenwich. And the pendulum clock
at Greenwich was the "master clock" of the world for
a very long time.

> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
> and mumbled?

As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

In 1967 the definition was changed to the one based
on the Cs atom we have now.
The definition was made such that it still is
86400 seconds in a mean solar day.

>> The _mean_ solar day is still 86400 seconds
>> even if the definition of a second has changed.

Which means that the change will have very few consequences
for most people.

But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
choice.

>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>> of solar day.
>>
>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
> 
> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
> to you?

Yes of course.
The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
and can measure on his own clock that one rotation lasts:

>> Newton and Einstein would agree that the moving observer
>> in the telescope will observe that a mean solar day last
>> 49942 seconds on the observer's clock.
>> 
>> An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
>> Or won't you?

Was I possibly wrong when I assumed you were intelligent?


> 
> But what does it predict as the result of
> measurement of the length of a solar day?
> 

The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.

The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.

---------------------

Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662558

W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>> Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>> During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
>>> 86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
>>
>> Oh, really?
> 
> Yes, really. Your ignorance is amazing! :-D
> 
> The orbit of the Earth is elliptic so the orbital speed varies.
> At perihelion, the speed is highest, and the solar day is longest,
> 86430 seconds. At aphelion, the speed is slowest and the solar day
> will be shortest, 86378 seconds.
> 
> The _mean_ solar day is the average of a solar day
> through the year. As you know, it is 86400 seconds.
> But to find the length of a _mean_ solar day, the varying
> length of the solar days had to be measured for a very long time.
> This was done at Greenwich. And the pendulum clock
> at Greenwich was the "master clock" of the world for
> a very long time.
> 
>> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
>> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
>> and mumbled?
> 
> As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.


Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
the subject are no way changing the fact
that the physics of your idiot guru was
not even consistent, and your suggestion
that the definition used by physics for
centuries  could no way be the definition
in physics is a pure absurd.


> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
> choice.

No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.

>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>>> of solar day.
>>>
>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>>
>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>> to you?
> 
> Yes of course.
> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,

Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
beloved Shit is claiming?

> 
> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
> the proper length of a mean solar day.

Some taboo or what?

> 
> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
> by a stationary clock on the geoid.

Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...


> Can you please explain the subject line?
> What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662561 — About some brainwashing

W dniu 09.04.2025 o 12:44, Maciej Wozniak pisze:

>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
>> choice.
> 
> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.

See, trash: all those tales of twins and
their clocks and manifolds and singularities
and Laws of Nature  - had just one purpose:
to convince you (and other fools) that "the
obvious choice" is what The Shit wanted you
to choose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662575

Den 09.04.2025 12:44, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
>> Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>>> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
>>> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
>>> and mumbled?
>>
>> As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
> 

And since Einstein used the same definition of second as everybody
else, then it is clear that his physics was inconsistent!
Right?

You are a real master in drawing logical conclusions.
Congratulations! :-D

> Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
> the subject are no way changing the fact
> that the physics of your idiot guru was
> not even consistent, 

The subject was the definition of a second.
Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
between a solar day and a mean solar day.
Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
is simply wrong.

But you know better now, or don't you?

> and your suggestion
> that the definition used by physics for
> centuries  could no way be the definition
> in physics is a pure absurd.

Allow yourself to think when you read the below:
(What i explain is correct in principle, but not in detail)

Whether you use the old or new definition of a second,
there is still 86400 seconds in a solar day.
That's not the difference between the definitions.

But what is precision of the old definition?
The best temperature compensated quart clocks have a precision
in the order of ~ 1e-7. That means that the second can be measured
to be 1.000000 ± 10 μs
A mean solar day could be measured to be 86400 ± 8.64 ms.


In modern physics we need extremely precise clocks, and then
atomic clocks are the only solution. An atomic clock can have
precision up to 1e-18, but let us say it is 1e-15.
That means that it in principle is able to measure the second
within a femto second, and a mean solar day to be 86400 ±86 ps

It would obviously be meaningless to try to calibrate this clock
to a xtal clock which is calibrated to the old definition
to a precision 1e-7.
So we must have a definition of second which is precise
to within 1e-15 or better. And that is the new SI definition.

Any atomic clock has the definition of second built in.

To sum up:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.

Einstein could use the old definition.
Modern physicists can not.

> 
> 
>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
>> choice.
> 
> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.

I am not going to quarrel with you.

I am telling facts.
There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.

These networks could not work with the old definition of second.

> 
>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>>>> of solar day.
>>>>
>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>>>
>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>>> to you?
>>
>> Yes of course.
>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
> 
> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
> beloved Shit is claiming?

Yes! Did you really not understand that?
The observer would have to have an extremely powerful telescope, though.

I am beginning to suspect that you are not very smart.

> 
>>
>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
> 
> Some taboo or what?

I said obviously!
If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.

> 
>>
>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.

Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
86400.00003875 seconds.
Experimental verified fact.

> 
> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
> comparing it to its 1/86400.

Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.

Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?


> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
> the result will be...

What?

> 
> 
>> Can you please explain the subject line?
>> What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?

Of course you can't,

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662585

On 4/9/2025 10:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

[Sorry fpr personal reply, a misclick]

 > Den 09.04.2025 12:44, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
 >> W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
 >>> Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
 >>>
 >>>> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
 >>>> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
 >>>> and mumbled?
 >>>
 >>> As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
 >>
 >
 > And since Einstein used the same definition of second as everybody
 > else, then it is clear that his physics was inconsistent!
 > Right?


You are a real master in drawing logical conclusions.
Congratulations! 😂


 >
 >> Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
 >> the subject are no way changing the fact
 >> that the physics of your idiot guru was
 >> not even consistent,
 >
 > The subject was the definition of a second.
 > Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
 > between a solar day and a mean solar day.
 > Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
 > is simply wrong.

Unfortunately, that is not my claim, that is
a derivable from the most basic definition
part of the physics of your idiot guru.


 > To sum up:
 > Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
 > New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
 >
 > Einstein could use the old definition.
 > Modern physicists can not.

Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
Sane people, on the other hand - can't
use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
check GPS.

 >>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
 >>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
 >>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
 >>> choice.
 >>
 >> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
 >> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
 >> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
 >
 > I am not going to quarrel with you.
 >
 > I am telling facts.
 > There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
 > The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
 >
 > These networks could not work with the old definition of second.

Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will  you deny?
Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
some  religious maniacs, but it's still
something sane people are not going to allow.




 >
 >>
 >>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
 >>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
 >>>>>> of solar day.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
 >>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
 >>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
 >>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
 >>>>
 >>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
 >>>> to you?
 >>>
 >>> Yes of course.
 >>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
 >>
 >> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
 >> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
 >> beloved Shit is claiming?
 >
 > Yes! Did you really not understand that?

Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
according to it in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower.
Did you really not understand that?

 >>
 >>>
 >>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not 
measure
 >>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
 >>
 >> Some taboo or what?
 >
 > I said obviously!
 > If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
 >
 >>
 >>>
 >>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
 >>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
 >
 > Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
 > 86400.00003875 seconds.
 > Experimental verified fact.\

Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.

 >
 >>
 >> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
 >> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
 >> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
 >> comparing it to its 1/86400.
 >
 > Quite.
 > And the result is:
 > Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
 > New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.

Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).



 >
 > Do you find it problematic that the new definition
 > is more precise than the old one?

No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.

 >
 >
 >> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
 >> the result will be...
 >
 > What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.




 >
 >>
 >>
 >>> Can you please explain the subject line?
 >>> What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?

Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662606

Den 10.04.2025 07:04, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 4/9/2025 10:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
> 
>> Den 09.04.2025 12:44, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>> W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
>>>> Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>
>>>>> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
>>>>> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
>>>>> and mumbled?
>>>>
>>>> As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
>>>
>>
>> And since Einstein used the same definition of second as everybody
>> else, then it is clear that his physics was inconsistent!
>> Right?
>> 
>> 
>> You are a real master in drawing logical conclusions.
>> Congratulations! 😂
> 
> 
>>
>>> Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
>>> the subject are no way changing the fact
>>> that the physics of your idiot guru was
>>> not even consistent,
>>
>> The subject was the definition of a second.
>> Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
>> between a solar day and a mean solar day.
>> Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
>> is simply wrong.

> 
> Unfortunately, that is not my claim, that is
> a derivable from the most basic definition
> part of the physics of your idiot guru.

Why do you lie about something which is so easy to check?

> Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
between a solar day and a mean solar day.
Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
is simply wrong.

> 
> 
>> To sum up:
>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>>
>> Einstein could use the old definition.
>> Modern physicists can not.

> 
> Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
> Sane people, on the other hand - can't
> use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
> check GPS.

Do you really not understand that to measure time to
a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in?

Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
that ignorant?

> 
>>>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
>>>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
>>>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
>>>> choice.
>>>
>>> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
>>> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
>>> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
>>
>> I am not going to quarrel with you.
>>
>> I am telling facts.
>> There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
>> The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
>>
>> These networks could not work with the old definition of second.

> 
> Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
> a very impudent lie, expected of course from
> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
> they tried, they would soon loose the
> synchronization - will  you deny?
> Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
> some  religious maniacs, but it's still
> something sane people are not going to allow.

I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D

I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
look up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time

> 
>  >
>  >>
>  >>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>  >>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>  >>>>>> of solar day.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>  >>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>  >>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>  >>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>  >>>>
>  >>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>  >>>> to you?
>  >>>
>  >>> Yes of course.
>  >>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
>  >>
>  >> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
>  >> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
>  >> beloved Shit is claiming?
>  >
>  > Yes! Did you really not understand that?
> 
> Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
> according to it in such circumstances the
> clock will be seen as running slower.
> Did you really not understand that?

You are making a fool of yourself again.
This is Doppler shift.

You have just revealed that you are so ignorant of elementary
physics that you don't even know what Doppler shift is.

Congratulations. :-D

> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not 
> measure
>>>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
>>>
>>> Some taboo or what?
>>
>> I said obviously!
>> If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
>>>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>>
>> Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
>> 86400.00003875 seconds.
>> Experimental verified fact.\
> 
> Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
> A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
> to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
> changes too.

You are babbling nonsense.

I will tell you some facts:

It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.

During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.

Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
confirmed that is no question of their validity.

And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
who only tell lies about what is measured.

This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".

After many decades use of the GPS, everything about
GPS is extremely well _measured_.

It is a fact that a sidereal day by a satellite in GPS orbit
is measured to last (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than when
it is measured with a clock on the geoid.

And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.

------------------------

Physics is all about experimental evidence.

So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
  straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."

Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
>>> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
>>> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
>>> comparing it to its 1/86400.
>>
>> Quite.
>> And the result is:
>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
> 
> Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
> just some paragraphs above?
> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
> New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
> at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
> And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
> with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
> but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
> saying about that).
> 

I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..

It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.

> 
>>
>> Do you find it problematic that the new definition
>> is more precise than the old one?
> 
> No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
> maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
> the facts anyone can check at GPS.

I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.

Are you too dumb to understand this obvious fact?

> 
>>
>>
>>> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
>>> the result will be...
>>
>> What?

> ~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
> ~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
> with c/2.
> That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
> MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
> to your insane guru.

So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D

> Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
> idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
> in his idiotic theory?
> Yes or no?

Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
what the theory is?

I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.

If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
is inconsistent.

Start with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

and continue with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf

Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
to know that his theory is idiotic.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662608

On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

>>> To sum up:
>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>>>
>>> Einstein could use the old definition.
>>> Modern physicists can not.
> 
>>
>> Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
>> Sane people, on the other hand - can't
>> use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
>> check GPS.
> 
> Do you really not understand that to measure time to
> a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
> has the very precise definition built in?

And they for sure have a very precise definition built
in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
is trying to enforce.
Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?



  >
> Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
> that ignorant?
> 
>>
>>>>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
>>>>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
>>>>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
>>>>> choice.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
>>>> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
>>>> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
>>>
>>> I am not going to quarrel with you.
>>>
>>> I am telling facts.
>>> There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
>>> The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
>>>
>>> These networks could not work with the old definition of second.
> 
>>
>> Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
>> a very impudent lie, expected of course from
>> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
>> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
>> they tried, they would soon loose the
>> synchronization - will  you deny?
>> Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
>> some  religious maniacs, but it's still
>> something sane people are not going to allow.
> 
> I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
> consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D

I note with no interest that you lie again,
as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
claim that or anything similar.


> 
> I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
> look up:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
> 
>>
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>  >>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>  >>>>>> of solar day.
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>>  >>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>>  >>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>>  >>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>>  >>>> to you?
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Yes of course.
>>  >>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
>>  >>
>>  >> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
>>  >> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
>>  >> beloved Shit is claiming?
>>  >
>>  > Yes! Did you really not understand that?
>>
>> Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
>> according to it in such circumstances the
>> clock will be seen as running slower.
>> Did you really not understand that?
> 
> You are making a fool of yourself again.
> This is Doppler shift.

This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
is claiming that in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower, not
as running faster.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not 
>> measure
>>>>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
>>>>
>>>> Some taboo or what?
>>>
>>> I said obviously!
>>> If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
>>>>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>>>
>>> Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
>>> 86400.00003875 seconds.
>>> Experimental verified fact.\
>>
>> Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
>> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
>> A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
>> to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
>> changes too.
> 
> You are babbling nonsense.
> 
> I will tell you some facts:
> 
> It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
> he introduced GR.


True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000 -



> 
> During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
> are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.

When you talk to a deeply believing christian  -
everything is confirming the existence of God
for him. The Shit's worshippers are just similar.



> SR and GR are never falsified.


Too bad they were not even consistent.

> And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
> be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.


Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
itself must give 86400.000038575

BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
I took the number from you without much thinking
yesterday, but it's mistaken too.


> 
> ------------------------
> 
> Physics is all about experimental evidence.

Only such a primitive moron can believe such a naive
bullshit, sorry.

> 
> So when someone say:
> "Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
>   straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
> 
> Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
> and revealed that he is an idiot.

Oppositely, that happens when someone is saying
"Physics is all about experimental evidence."


> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
>>>> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
>>>> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
>>>> comparing it to its 1/86400.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>> And the result is:
>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>>
>> Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
>> just some paragraphs above?
>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>> New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
>> at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
>> And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
>> with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
>> but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
>> saying about that).
>>
> 
> I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..


Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.

> 
> It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
> fool you are making of yourself.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Do you find it problematic that the new definition
>>> is more precise than the old one?
>>
>> No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
>> maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
>> the facts anyone can check at GPS.
> 
> I note with interest that you don't know that
> an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
> calibrated to the old definition.

An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
useless, though, and that's  why (anyone can check
that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774  at a satellite.
What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.




>>>> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
>>>> the result will be...
>>>
>>> What?
> 
>> ~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
>> ~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
>> with c/2.
>> That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
>> MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
>> to your insane guru.
> 
> So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
> a mean solar day? :-D


Even more generally - the only way anything can be
measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
day. I'm sorry, trash.


  >> Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
>> idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
>> in his idiotic theory?
>> Yes or no?
> 
> Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?


No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
as usual. So, yes or no?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662619

Den 10.04.2025 19:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>>>> To sum up:
>>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein could use the old definition.
>>>> Modern physicists can not.
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
>>> Sane people, on the other hand - can't
>>> use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
>>> check GPS.
>>
>> Do you really not understand that to measure time to
>> a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
>> has the very precise definition built in?
> 
> And they for sure have a very precise definition built
> in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
> is trying to enforce.
> Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
> indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
> you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?

ISO ? ROFL

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of
the cesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine
transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to be 9,192,631,770
when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^−1."

So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

> 
> 
> 
>   >
>> Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
>> that ignorant?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
>>>>>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
>>>>>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
>>>>> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
>>>>> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
>>>>
>>>> I am not going to quarrel with you.
>>>>
>>>> I am telling facts.
>>>> There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
>>>> The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
>>>>
>>>> These networks could not work with the old definition of second.
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
>>> a very impudent lie, expected of course from
>>> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
>>> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
>>> they tried, they would soon loose the
>>> synchronization - will  you deny?
>>> Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
>>> some  religious maniacs, but it's still
>>> something sane people are not going to allow.
>>
>> I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
>> consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D
> 
> I note with no interest that you lie again,
> as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
> claim that or anything similar.

To my statement:
"There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
  The TAI network which is the base of UTC and the time zones.
  These networks could not work with the old definition of second."

You responded:
"Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
  a very impudent lie, expected of course from
  a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
  surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
  they tried, they would soon loose the
  synchronization - will  you deny?"

(I suppose ISo should be SI)

So you claim that the TAI network doesn't exist because
the atomic clocks surely can't work with your ISo idiocy;
if they tried, they would soon loose the synchronization

An incredible idiotic claim! :-D

>> I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
>> look up:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
>>
>>>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>>>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>>>>>>>> of solar day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>>>>>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>>>>>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>>>>>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>>>>>>> to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes of course.
>>>>>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
>>>>>
>>>>> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
>>>>> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
>>>>> beloved Shit is claiming?
>>>>
>>>> Yes! Did you really not understand that?
>>>
>>> Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
>>> according to it in such circumstances the
>>> clock will be seen as running slower.
>>> Did you really not understand that?
>>
>> You are making a fool of yourself again.
>> This is Doppler shift.
> 
> This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
> is claiming that in such circumstances the
> clock will be seen as running slower, not
> as running faster.

A hint:
an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun.

I find it amazing that a person who is posting
in a physics can be so ignorant of Doppler shift!

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not 
>>> measure
>>>>>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some taboo or what?
>>>>
>>>> I said obviously!
>>>> If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
>>>>>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>>>>
>>>> Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
>>>> 86400.00003875 seconds.
>>>> Experimental verified fact.\
>>>
>>> Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
>>> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
>>> A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
>>> to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
>>> changes too.
>>
>> You are babbling nonsense.
>>
>> I will tell you some facts:
>> 
>> It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
>> he introduced GR.
>> 
>> During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
>> are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
>> SR and GR are never falsified.
>> Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
>> 
>> Here is some of the experiments:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>> 
>> All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
>> confirmed that is no question of their validity.
>> 
>> And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
>> claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
>> who only tell lies about what is measured.
>> 
>> This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
>> the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".

> 
> True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
> comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
> must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000 

So the real idiot thinks that Einstein in 1915
mumbled about what the duration of a mean solar
day would be when measured by a GPS satellite? :-D

But of course, GR is the theory that make it possible
to predict what the the duration would be.
But to do the actual measurement, it was necessary
to make a more precise definition of a second,
and invent atomic clocks.

Now, when all that is done, the duration of a mean solar day
measured by a clock in GPS orbit is 86400.000038575 s
as predicted by GR.
-
>> During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
>> are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
> 
> 
> When you talk to a deeply believing christian  -
> everything is confirming the existence of God
> for him. 

Sure. But why do you think it is relevant?

> The Shit's worshippers are just similar.

Does this cryptic statement mean that there are
experiment which have falsified SR/GR?
Can you name one?

> 
> 
> 
>> SR and GR are never falsified.
>> Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
>> 
>> Here is some of the experiments:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

> 
> 
> Too bad they were not even consistent.

In that case I am sure you can name which experiment is inconsistent,
and can explain exactly why.

Can you do that? :-D

> 
>> And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
>> be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
> 
> 
> Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
> understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
> itself must give 86400.000038575

:-D

> BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?

Yes. It is 86400(1 + 4.4647e-10)s
I said "clock in GPS orbit", not GPS clock.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

> I took the number from you without much thinking
> yesterday, but it's mistaken too.

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

The fact that this adjustment is necessary prove
the fact that a clock built after the SI defintion
will be fast by (1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to UTC.

But you don't understand this, and never will.

>>
>> Physics is all about experimental evidence.
> 
> Only such a primitive moron can believe such a naive
> bullshit, sorry.
> 
>>
>> So when someone say:
>> "Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
>>   straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
>>
>> Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
>> and revealed that he is an idiot.
> 
> Oppositely, that happens when someone is saying
> "Physics is all about experimental evidence.

Its kind of comforting that you are too stupid to understand
how giant fool you have made by yourself.

>>>>>
>>>>> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
>>>>> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
>>>>> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
>>>>> comparing it to its 1/86400.
>>>>
>>>> Quite.
>>>> And the result is:
>>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>>>
>>> Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
>>> just some paragraphs above?
>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
>>> New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
>>> at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
>>> And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
>>> with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
>>> but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
>>> saying about that).
>>>
>>
>> I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.

OK. You have changed your mind. Doppler isn't "insane shit".

> 
>>
>> It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
>> fool you are making of yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you find it problematic that the new definition
>>>> is more precise than the old one?
>>>
>>> No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
>>> maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
>>> the facts anyone can check at GPS.
>>
>> I note with interest that you don't know that
>> an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
>> calibrated to the old definition.
> 
> An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
> is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
> to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
> useless, though, and that's  why (anyone can check
> that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
> 9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774  at a satellite.
> What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.

Thank you for confirming that you don't know that
it would be impossible to make an atomic clock
run to a precision 1e-15 without the new definition
of the second.

BTW, why do you think the ISO standard is relevant to
the definition of a second?
"Atomic clocks calibrated to your ISO idiocy is lacking
  precision and pretty useless."

You are very confused, are you not?
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ISO-date-format.

The institution that defines unit standard is:


> 
> 
>>>>> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
>>>>> the result will be...
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>
>>> ~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
>>> ~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
>>> with c/2.
>>> That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
>>> MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
>>> to your insane guru.
>>
>> So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
>> a mean solar day? :-D
> 
> 
> Even more generally - the only way anything can be
> measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
> reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
> and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
> day. I'm sorry, trash.


So now you don't even try to make sense.
> 
> 
>>> Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
>>> idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
>>> in his idiotic theory?
>>> Yes or no?
>>
>> Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
>> How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
>> what the theory is?
>> 
>> I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
>> everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
>> 
>> If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
>> I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
>> is inconsistent.
>> 
>> Start with this:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
>> 
>> and continue with this:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf>
>> 
>> Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
>> to know that his theory is idiotic.

> No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
> as usual. So, yes or no?

Not quite the answer I asked for, but close.

Interesting to know that Einstein's papers are
my fabrications. Should I be proud?


I think we end it here.

I have noted during years that you never ever have made
a sensible statement in your posts. Just meaningless nonsense.
That's why I previously have ignored you and never responded to you.

But I thought it would be interesting to see if you could defend
your idiotic claims. You couldn't.

So back to normal.
 From now I will ignore you again.

It has been fun, though.
Thanks for the entertainment. :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662621

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 > Den 10.04.2025 19:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
 >> On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 >>
 >>>>> To sum up:
 >>>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
 >>>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Einstein could use the old definition.
 >>>>> Modern physicists can not.
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
 >>>> Sane people, on the other hand - can't
 >>>> use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
 >>>> check GPS.
 >>>
 >>> Do you really not understand that to measure time to
 >>> a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
 >>> has the very precise definition built in?
 >>
 >> And they for sure have a very precise definition built
 >> in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
 >> is trying to enforce.
 >> Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
 >> indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
 >> you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?
 >
 > ISO ? ROFL
 >
 > I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
 > to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
 > has the very precise definition built in.
 >
 > I also accept that you don't know that the institution
 > that has the definitions of units, including the second,
 > is The International System of Units (SI).
 >
 > There is but one definition of second:

No, there is another, you've even quoted it.
I accept that, being a fanatic idiot, you're
enchanting the reality. I accept that you
imagine that all the mortal worms have no choice
but to obey those utterly idiotic commands of
your utterly idiotic church. Well, a mistake
of yours.


 > So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
 > who are measuring time in seconds.

No, whether you like it or not it is not,
anyone can check GPS, sorry, trash.


  you can bring anywhere and
 >>>>>>> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
 >>>>>>> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
 >>>>>>> choice.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
 >>>>>> people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
 >>>>>> didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> I am not going to quarrel with you.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> I am telling facts.
 >>>>> There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
 >>>>> The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> These networks could not work with the old definition of second.
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
 >>>> a very impudent lie, expected of course from
 >>>> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
 >>>> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
 >>>> they tried, they would soon loose the
 >>>> synchronization - will  you deny?
 >>>> Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
 >>>> some  religious maniacs, but it's still
 >>>> something sane people are not going to allow.
 >>>
 >>> I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
 >>> consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. 😂
 >>
 >> I note with no interest that you lie again,
 >> as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
 >> claim that or anything similar.
 >
 > To my statement:
 > "There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
 >   The TAI network which is the base of UTC and the time zones.
 >   These networks could not work with the old definition of second."
 >
 > You responded:
 > "Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
 >   a very impudent lie, expected of course from
 >   a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
 >   surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
 >   they tried, they would soon loose the
 >   synchronization - will  you deny?"
 >
 > (I suppose ISo should be SI)
 >
 > So you claim that the TAI network doesn't exist

No, a lie again, I've never claimed that or anything alike.


 > the atomic clocks surely can't work with your ISo idiocy;

That I claimed.

 > if they tried, they would soon loose the synchronization

Do you say they wouldn't?


 >>> I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
 >>> look up:
 >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
 >>>
 >>>>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
 >>>>>>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
 >>>>>>>>>> of solar day.
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
 >>>>>>>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
 >>>>>>>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
 >>>>>>>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
 >>>>>>>> to you?
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Yes of course.
 >>>>>>> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
 >>>>>> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
 >>>>>> beloved Shit is claiming?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Yes! Did you really not understand that?
 >>>>
 >>>> Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
 >>>> according to it in such circumstances the
 >>>> clock will be seen as running slower.
 >>>> Did you really not understand that?
 >>>
 >>> You are making a fool of yourself again.
 >>> This is Doppler shift.
 >>
 >> This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
 >> is claiming that in such circumstances the
 >> clock will be seen as running slower, not
 >> as running faster.
 >
 > A hint:
 > an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun.

No matter towards or backward, according to
The Shit the clock will be seen running slower.


 >>>>>>> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
 >>>> measure
 >>>>>>> the proper length of a mean solar day.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Some taboo or what?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> I said obviously!
 >>>>> If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
 >>>>>>> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
 >>>>> 86400.00003875 seconds.
 >>>>> Experimental verified fact.\
 >>>>
 >>>> Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
 >>>> straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
 >>>> A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
 >>>> to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
 >>>> changes too.
 >>>
 >>> You are babbling nonsense.
 >>>
 >>> I will tell you some facts:
 >>>
 >>> It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
 >>> he introduced GR.
 >>>
 >>> During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
 >>> are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
 >>> SR and GR are never falsified.
 >>> Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
 >>>
 >>> Here is some of the experiments:
 >>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
 >>>
 >>> All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
 >>> confirmed that is no question of their validity.
 >>>
 >>> And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
 >>> claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
 >>> who only tell lies about what is measured.
 >>>
 >>> This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
 >>> the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".
 >
 >>
 >> True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
 >> comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
 >> must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000
 >
 > So the real idiot thinks that Einstein in 1915
 > mumbled about what the duration of a mean solar
 > day would be when measured by a GPS satellite? 😂

He mumbled what duration of a mean solar day
would be measured by anyone or anything.

 > But to do the actual measurement, it was necessary
 > to make a more precise definition of a second,

That's right, new definition was absolutely
necessary since under the old one the mumble of
the idiot was self denying.

 > Now, when all that is done, the duration of a mean solar day
 > measured by a clock in GPS orbit is 86400.000038575 s
 > as predicted by GR.

Now after you concocted an unusable absurd
especially to make the prophecies of the idiot
fulfilled - they're fulfilled. Or rather - they
would be fulfilled if someone was able to treat
the  absurd you've invented seriously.

But even if it really happened - that wouldn't
change the fact that the physics of the idiot was
not even consistent.




 > -
 >>> During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
 >>> are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
 >>
 >>
 >> When you talk to a deeply believing christian  -
 >> everything is confirming the existence of God
 >> for him.
 >
 > Sure. But why do you think it is relevant?
 >
 >> The Shit's worshippers are just similar.
 >
 > Does this cryptic statement mean that there are
 > experiment which have falsified SR/GR?

No. That means that your "confirmation"
bullshit is lacking any logic. As for falsification -
only morons like you can believe its magic
powers, thinkers more advanced than poor idiot
Popper (Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better.



 >> Too bad they were not even consistent.
 >
 > In that case I am sure you can name which experiment is inconsistent,
 > and can explain exactly why.

I didn't say your experiments are inconsistent,
I said your theories are.



 >>> And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
 >>> be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
 >>
 >>
 >> Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
 >> understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
 >> itself must give 86400.000038575
 >
 > 😂
 >
 >> BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
 >
 > Yes. It is 86400(1 + 4.4647e-10)s

Well, maybe a mistake of me this time.

 > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
 > to last 86400 s

Yes, they will. See, BTW: the result matching
your Shit and your SI are only in your sick
imagination, real clocks are ignoring your
madness and keep measuring t'=t in old seconds.
Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.



 >
 > The fact that this adjustment is necessary prove

prove that your SI absurd is an absurd and
nobody sane is going to treat it seriously.
And especially people responsible for serious
measurements.

But you don't understand this and never will.


 >
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
 >>>>>> [something] to the unit. In the physics of your
 >>>>>> idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
 >>>>>> comparing it to its 1/86400.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Quite.
 >>>>> And the result is:
 >>>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
 >>>>> New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
 >>>>
 >>>> Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
 >>>> just some paragraphs above?
 >>>> Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
 >>>> New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
 >>>> at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
 >>>> And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
 >>>> with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
 >>>> but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
 >>>> saying about that).
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>> I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
 >>
 >>
 >> Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.
 >
 > OK. You have changed your mind. Doppler isn't "insane shit".

No, I didn't.  Doppler isn't "insane shit".


 >
 >>
 >>>
 >>> It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
 >>> fool you are making of yourself.
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Do you find it problematic that the new definition
 >>>>> is more precise than the old one?
 >>>>
 >>>> No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
 >>>> maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
 >>>> the facts anyone can check at GPS.
 >>>
 >>> I note with interest that you don't know that
 >>> an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
 >>> calibrated to the old definition.
 >>
 >> An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
 >> is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
 >> to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
 >> useless, though, and that's  why (anyone can check
 >> that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
 >> 9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774  at a satellite.
 >> What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.
 >
 > Thank you for confirming that you don't know that
 > it would be impossible to make an atomic clock
 > run to a precision 1e-15 without the new definition
 > of the second.

Take your "precision" and put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs;  real
measurements of real precision  will keep
ignoring it.




 >
 > BTW, why do you think the ISO standard is relevant to
 > the definition of a second?

 > "Atomic clocks calibrated to your ISO idiocy is lacking
 >   precision and pretty useless."
 >
 > You are very confused, are you not?
 > https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ISO-date-format.
 >
 > The institution that defines unit standard is:

Some idiots screaming "STANDARD!!! STANDARD!!!"
aren't enough to establish a standard.


 >
 >
 >>
 >>
 >>>>>> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
 >>>>>> the result will be...
 >>>>>
 >>>>> What?
 >>>
 >>>> ~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
 >>>> ~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
 >>>> with c/2.
 >>>> That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
 >>>> MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
 >>>> to your insane guru.
 >>>
 >>> So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
 >>> a mean solar day? 😂
 >>
 >>
 >> Even more generally - the only way anything can be
 >> measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
 >> reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
 >> and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
 >> day. I'm sorry, trash.
 >
 >
 > So now you don't even try to make sense.

So you don't even know what the word "measurement"
means. Why am I not surprosed.

 >>
 >>
 >>>> Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
 >>>> idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
 >>>> in his idiotic theory?
 >>>> Yes or no?
 >>>
 >>> Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
 >>> How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
 >>> what the theory is?
 >>>
 >>> I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
 >>> everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
 >>>
 >>> If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
 >>> I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
 >>> is inconsistent.
 >>>
 >>> Start with this:
 >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
 >>>
 >>> and continue with this:
 >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf>
 >>>
 >>> Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
 >>> to know that his theory is idiotic.
 >
 >> No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
 >> as usual. So, yes or no?
 >
 > Not quite the answer I asked for, but close.
 >
 > Interesting to know that Einstein's papers are
 > my fabrications.

Nope, your fabrication is your claim I didn't
read them. So, yes or no?


 > I have noted during years that you never ever have made
 > a sensible statement in your posts.

Keep raving and spitting, nothing else is
expected from a relativistic idiot. The
physics of your idiot guru will remain
not even consistent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662570

On 04/09/2025 02:50 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>> Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>> During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
>>> 86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
>>
>> Oh, really?
>
> Yes, really. Your ignorance is amazing! :-D
>
> The orbit of the Earth is elliptic so the orbital speed varies.
> At perihelion, the speed is highest, and the solar day is longest,
> 86430 seconds. At aphelion, the speed is slowest and the solar day
> will be shortest, 86378 seconds.
>
> The _mean_ solar day is the average of a solar day
> through the year. As you know, it is 86400 seconds.
> But to find the length of a _mean_ solar day, the varying
> length of the solar days had to be measured for a very long time.
> This was done at Greenwich. And the pendulum clock
> at Greenwich was the "master clock" of the world for
> a very long time.
>
>> So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
>> physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
>> and mumbled?
>
> As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
>
> In 1967 the definition was changed to the one based
> on the Cs atom we have now.
> The definition was made such that it still is
> 86400 seconds in a mean solar day.
>
>>> The _mean_ solar day is still 86400 seconds
>>> even if the definition of a second has changed.
>
> Which means that the change will have very few consequences
> for most people.
>
> But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
> still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
> an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
> choice.
>
>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>>> of solar day.
>>>
>>> If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
>>> then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
>>> in his telescope would see the angular frequency
>>> of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>>
>> And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
>> to you?
>
> Yes of course.
> The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
> and can measure on his own clock that one rotation lasts:
>
>>> Newton and Einstein would agree that the moving observer
>>> in the telescope will observe that a mean solar day last
>>> 49942 seconds on the observer's clock.
>>>
>>> An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
>>> Or won't you?
>
> Was I possibly wrong when I assumed you were intelligent?
>
>
>>
>> But what does it predict as the result of
>> measurement of the length of a solar day?
>>
>
> The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
> the proper length of a mean solar day.
>
> The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
> by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>
> ---------------------
>
> Can you please explain the subject line?
> What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
>

What paper is this exactly again?

Please proffer a link to the text of this.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web