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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670990 > unrolled thread

Stellar aberration - again

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

Contents

  Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-30 14:55 +0200
    Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 10:28 -0700
      Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 10:43 -0700
    Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 12:47 -0700
    Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 22:07 -0700
    Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 22:14 -0700
    Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-31 12:34 +0300
      Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-31 13:51 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-31 18:07 +0300
          Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-31 20:46 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-01 11:03 +0300
    Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-05-31 22:19 +0200
      Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-05-31 22:55 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-01 11:01 +0300
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-01 10:11 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-01 20:50 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-01 21:46 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-02 10:52 +0300
              Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 11:17 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-02 13:56 +0200
              Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 14:15 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 13:53 +0200
                  Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-03 14:20 +0200
                    Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 15:15 +0200
                      Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-03 15:48 +0200
                        Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 12:37 +0200
                          Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-04 12:51 +0200
                            Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 13:39 +0200
                              Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-04 14:40 +0200
                                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 15:26 +0200
                              Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-06 09:05 +0200
                                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-06 09:25 +0200
                                Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-06 23:38 +0200
                                  Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-08 08:54 +0200
                                    Re: Stellar aberration - again Dylan Wyrzyk <wnyl@yzwrr.pl> - 2026-06-08 10:13 +0000
                                      Re: Stellar aberration - again phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 07:42 -0600
                                        Re: Stellar aberration - again Andreas Amoretto <tossto@trmatad.it> - 2026-06-08 15:00 +0000
                                          Re: Stellar aberration - again phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 09:06 -0600
      Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-01 20:45 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-02 21:43 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 21:56 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 15:10 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-03 21:21 +0200
              Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 12:57 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-09 21:43 +0200
                  Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-10 15:10 +0200
                    Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-10 15:23 +0200
                    Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-10 21:25 +0200
                      Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-11 21:36 +0200
                        Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-11 21:34 +0200
    Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-02 22:10 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#671033

On 6/2/2026 1:56 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.06.2026 21:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/1/2026 8:50 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 31.05.2026 22:55, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>
>>>> A fanatic idiot will always easily find
>>>> hundreds of confirmations that he has
>>>> to be on the right path.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you name one of the hundreds of confirmations
>>> that you are at the right path?
>>
>> Well, for instance, as anyone can see here
>> - even such a disgusting piece of lying
>> shit as you are, Paul - can't lie non stop
>> and sometimes you admit how things really
>> are.
>>
> 
> Quite.
> Here I admit how the thing stellar aberration really is:

And here:

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 > 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.

you admit that the real measurement result
of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
by your insane Shit. It's very fortunate
indeed that most of relativistic idiots
are too dumb to  lie consequently.



> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
> 
> You will find other admissions about how thing really are here:
> https://paulba.no/
> 
> But you didn't answer the question:
>   Can you name one of the hundreds of confirmations
>   that YOU are at the right path?

I did. You can't read, no surprise. Most of
relativistic idiots can't.


> 
> Try again?
> 

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

#671049

Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:

> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>  > 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.
> 
> you admit that the real measurement result
> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
> by your insane Shit. 

SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.

IQ-test:
Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
with an SI-clock on the ground:

A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
    measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
    longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
    an SI-clock on the ground.

B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
    measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
    longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
    an SI-clock on the ground.

A or B?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671050

On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
>> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>  > 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.
>>
>> you admit that the real measurement result
>> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>> by your insane Shit. 
> 
> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
> 
> IQ-test:
> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
> with an SI-clock on the ground:
> 
> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>     an SI-clock on the ground.

> 
> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>     an SI-clock on the ground.


B, of course. Double B, even.
Neither proper  time is counted with your
SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
prophecies of your mad guru.

Another thing you admit - the clocks stay in sync.
That means that their indications t and t' -
stay equal, according to the formula t=t'.

It's very fortunate indeed that most of
relativistic idiots are too dumb to lie
consequently - just like yourself.

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

#671052

Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>  > 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.
>>>
>>> you admit that the real measurement result
>>> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>>> by your insane Shit. 
>>
>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>
>> IQ-test:
>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>
>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
> 
>>
>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
> 
> 
> B, of course. Double B, even.
> Neither proper  time is counted with your
> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
> prophecies of your mad guru.
So your IQ < 80

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671054

On 6/3/2026 3:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>  > 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.
>>>>
>>>> you admit that the real measurement result
>>>> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>>>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>>>> by your insane Shit. 
>>>
>>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>>
>>> IQ-test:
>>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>>
>>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>
>>>
>>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>
>>
>> B, of course. Double B, even.
>> Neither proper  time is counted with your
>> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
>> prophecies of your mad guru.
> So your IQ < 80
> 

When some disgusting piece of fanatic, lying
shit is baselessly asserting - who could doubt?

But it's still very fortunate indeed that
most of relativistic idiots are too dumb to
lie consequently - just like yourself.

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

#671070

Den 03.06.2026 15:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/3/2026 3:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> you admit that the real measurement result
>>>>> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>>>>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>>>>> by your insane Shit. 
>>>>
>>>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>>>
>>>> IQ-test:
>>>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>>>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>>>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>>>
>>>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>
>>>
>>> B, of course. Double B, even.
>>> Neither proper  time is counted with your
>>> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
>>> prophecies of your mad guru.
>> So your IQ < 80
>>

Anybody with IQ above 80 (90% of people) will understand that
according to elementary logic, A is the only possible answer.

> 
> When some disgusting piece of fanatic, lying
> shit is baselessly asserting - who could doubt?
> 
> But it's still very fortunate indeed that
> most of relativistic idiots are too dumb to
> lie consequently - just like yourself.

Thanks for verifying my words! :-D


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671071

On 6/4/2026 12:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.06.2026 15:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/3/2026 3:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 02.06.2026 14:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you admit that the real measurement result
>>>>>> of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>>>>>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>>>>>> by your insane Shit. 
>>>>>
>>>>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>>>>
>>>>> IQ-test:
>>>>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>>>>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>>>>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>>>>
>>>>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> B, of course. Double B, even.
>>>> Neither proper  time is counted with your
>>>> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
>>>> prophecies of your mad guru.
>>> So your IQ < 80
>>>
> 
> Anybody with IQ above 80 (90% of people) will understand that
> according to elementary logic, A is the only possible answer.

And I'm perfectly understanding that according
to some "logic" elementary for a brainwashed
religious maniac - only statements of
magnificient confirmations of what he believes
are possible.

But it's still very fortunate indeed that
most of relativistic idiots are too dumb to
lie consequently - just like yourself.So sometimes you admit that the 
real measurement
result of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
by your insane Shit.

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

#671073

Den 04.06.2026 12:51, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/4/2026 12:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 03.06.2026 15:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 6/3/2026 3:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IQ-test:
>>>>>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>>>>>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>>>>>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> B, of course. Double B, even.
>>>>> Neither proper  time is counted with your
>>>>> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
>>>>> prophecies of your mad guru.

>>
>> Anybody with IQ above 80 (90% of people) will understand that
>> according to elementary logic, A is the only possible answer.
> 
> And I'm perfectly understanding that according
> to some "logic" elementary for a brainwashed
> religious maniac - only statements of
> magnificient confirmations of what he believes
> are possible.
> 
> But it's still very fortunate indeed that
> most of relativistic idiots are too dumb to
> lie consequently - just like yourself.So sometimes you admit that the 
> real measurement
> result of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
> by your insane Shit.
> 

The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:

  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.

Who is the brainwashed religious maniac? :-D

I know that you yet again will confirm that your IQ is below 80.

Enough now. Case closed.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671075

On 6/4/2026 1:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.06.2026 12:51, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/4/2026 12:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 03.06.2026 15:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 6/3/2026 3:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 03.06.2026 14:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 6/3/2026 1:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SI-clock - a clock measuring seconds as defined by SI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IQ-test:
>>>>>>> Does the fact that an SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
>>>>>>> down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync
>>>>>>> with an SI-clock on the ground:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A: Confirm GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B: Falsify GR's prediction that the proper time of one orbit
>>>>>>>     measured by an SI-clock in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>>>     longer than the duration of one GPS orbit measured by
>>>>>>>     an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B, of course. Double B, even.
>>>>>> Neither proper  time is counted with your
>>>>>> SI  idiocy nor it is  matching those mad
>>>>>> prophecies of your mad guru.
> 
>>>
>>> Anybody with IQ above 80 (90% of people) will understand that
>>> according to elementary logic, A is the only possible answer.
>>
>> And I'm perfectly understanding that according
>> to some "logic" elementary for a brainwashed
>> religious maniac - only statements of
>> magnificient confirmations of what he believes
>> are possible.
>>
>> But it's still very fortunate indeed that
>> most of relativistic idiots are too dumb to
>> lie consequently - just like yourself.So sometimes you admit that the 
>> real measurement
>> result of a solar day by GPS satellite clock -
>> is 86400s instead 864000s+37us predicted
>> by your insane Shit.
>>
> 
> The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:

The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:
as the real cloks, real measurements and
generally - the reallity - doesn't fit
what the maniac knows for sure from his
Holy Books  the reality should be - the
reality must be improper.

And since if (it was as the Holy Books state,
i.e. proper) then (it would be as the Holy Books
state) - Holy Books are confirmed.

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

#671077

Den 04.06.2026 14:40, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/4/2026 1:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:
<unsnip>
>> 
>>  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>>  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>>  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
>>  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
>>  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
>>  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
>>  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.
>> 
>> Who is the brainwashed religious maniac? 😂
>> 
>> I know that you yet again will confirm that your IQ is below 80.
<unsnip end>

> 
> The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:
> as the real cloks, real measurements and
> generally - the reallity - doesn't fit
> what the maniac knows for sure from his
> Holy Books  the reality should be - the
> reality must be improper.
> 
> And since if (it was as the Holy Books state,
> i.e. proper) then (it would be as the Holy Books
> state) - Holy Books are confirmed.
> 

Thanks for the confirmation! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671084

The 'nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Chadd Babaitsev":
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:
>>
>>   An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down by the factor (1 -
>>   4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
> 
> you adjust by offsets, not by factors. You regulate and control by 
> factors, where you need a feedback and a setpoint, to do the factor.

*facepalm*

  1 - 4.4647e-10 = ?

See also: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1>

F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#671085

On 6/6/2026 9:05 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The 'nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Chadd Babaitsev":
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> The logic of a brainwashed religious maniac:
>>>
>>>    An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down by the factor (1 -
>>>    4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>
>> you adjust by offsets, not by factors. You regulate and control by
>> factors, where you need a feedback and a setpoint, to do the factor.
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
>    1 - 4.4647e-10 = ?
> 
> See also: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1>


And anyway, "An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted
down by" - because your religious absurd is unusable for
serious measurements.

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

#671093

The 'nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Troyonta Funakoshi":
> inbreed wanker braindead Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [Paul B. Andersen wrote:]
>>>>   An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down by the factor (1 -
>>>>   4.4647e-10) to make it stay in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>
>>> you adjust by offsets, not by factors. You regulate and control by
>>> factors, where you need a feedback and a setpoint, to do the factor.
>>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>>   1 - 4.4647e-10 = ?
> 
> [didn't answer the question, instead threw a temper tantrum]

The correct answer is 0.99999999955353

This number lies between 0 and 1 exclusive, thus multiplying by it is
equivalent to adjusting the original value by a small negative offset,
namely 4.4647e-10 of the original value (here: x):

  x (1 - ε) = x - ε x.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#671116

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Abner Ustinovich":
> half german Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Is "half german" supposed to be an insult? :-D

>> The correct answer is 0.99999999955353
>>
>> This number lies between 0 and 1 exclusive, thus multiplying by it is
>> equivalent to adjusting the original value by a small negative offset,
>> namely 4.4647e-10 of the original value (here: x):
> 
> this inbreed wanker [...]

Apparently it is again time to let your (new) Usenet provider know about
your trolling.  As you simply cannot help yourself, yes?

F'up2 where it belongs

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#671122

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> half german Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Is "half german" supposed to be an insult? :-D

it's documented in the history books, the russians gang raped your 
shithole of a whore country. Now you are going to become mostly a quarter 
gearmon, as apparently you like being gang raped, you indolent stupid 
natzi mazarfaka.

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

#671125

Dylan Wyrzyk wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
>>> half german Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> Is "half german" supposed to be an insult? :-D
> 
> it's documented in the history books, the russians gang raped your
> shithole of a whore country. Now you are going to become mostly a quarter
> gearmon, as apparently you like being gang raped, you indolent stupid
> natzi mazarfaka.
> 
You're the stupid fuck promoting the false concept that gang-rape leads 
to stupidity. It's hard to say it but it has nothing to do with it. You 
are putting forward half-ideologies of your pathetic, perverse mind.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

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

#671126

phoenix wrote:

>> it's documented in the history books, the russians gang raped your
>> shithole of a whore country. Now you are going to become mostly a
>> quarter gearmon, as apparently you like being gang raped, you indolent
>> stupid natzi mazarfaka.
>> 
> You're the stupid fuck promoting the false concept that gang-rape leads
> to stupidity. It's hard to say it but it has nothing to do with it.

why are you even open you stinking dirty mouth, once you admit it's hard 
to say, the correctness of the history books documenting the gang rape on 
the natzis, with palpable proofs  

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

#671127

Andreas Amoretto wrote:
> phoenix wrote:
> 
>>> it's documented in the history books, the russians gang raped your
>>> shithole of a whore country. Now you are going to become mostly a
>>> quarter gearmon, as apparently you like being gang raped, you indolent
>>> stupid natzi mazarfaka.
>>>
>> You're the stupid fuck promoting the false concept that gang-rape leads
>> to stupidity. It's hard to say it but it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> why are you even open you stinking dirty mouth, once you admit it's hard
> to say, the correctness of the history books documenting the gang rape on
> the natzis, with palpable proofs
> 
Because you have shown yourself to know zero about hereditary 
attributes. You come in here with your stinking genetic ignorance, 
projecting vulnerability where there is none. Next you will be telling 
us about ass-babies and blonde Chinese people.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

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

#671025

Den 31.05.2026 22:19, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> 
>> I have made a new version of my article about stellar aberration:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
>>
>> Comments will be appreciated.
> 
> Once upon a time,
> the aberration *as observed with a water-filled telescope*
> was considered to be a crucial experiment. (Airy 1870)
> (the observed aberration is not affected)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspl/article/20/130-138/35/36940/IV-On-a-supposed-alteration-in-the-amount-of
or
https://tinyurl.com/29c9ph47
I quote from the the abstract:
  "A discussion has taken place on the Continent, conducted
   partly in the ‘Astronomische Nachrichten,’ partly in independent
   pamphlets, on the change of direction which a ray of light will
   receive (as inferred from the Undulatory Theory of Light) when
   traverses a refracting medium which has a motion of translation."

They thought 'stellar aberration' was caused by refraction.
If you assume that the atmosphere drags the ether 100%,
then the refraction would be arctan(v/c) ≈ v/c ≈ 20.5"
where v = the orbital speed of Earth and c = speed of light.
This is the same value as the observed aberration, but the
direction is exactly opposite to what is observed.
If the telescope was filled with water,then the refraction
within the water would be ≈ nv/c  where n is the index of
refraction. This was not observed.
So this ether drag theory is falsified twice.

Einstein knew what aberration was, so it didn't surprise
him that filling the telescope with water had no effect.

> 
> IIRC, Einstein is on record as having said that this experiment,
> togther with the partial aether dragging of Fizeau,
> was what convinced him that relativity had to be right. [1]

Yes. Fizeau's experiment was very important.
Einstein wrote about that in §13 in his popular book
"Relativitëtstheorie".
He points out that Fizeau's equation W = w + v(1-1/n²)
is approximately equal to the equation that follows from SR.
This book was published in 1916, but since Fizeau's experiment
was made in 1851 I am sure he had considered it, maybe before 1905.

See:
https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf

> 
> Your paper might be improved by adding a section or footnote
> on observing the aberration under such circumstances,

And what circumstances might that be?
Filling the telescope with water? :-)

This "dragged ether" nonsense is utterly irrelevant to
stellar aberration.
No point in referring to it in my article:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

> 
> Jan
> 
> [1] In other words, the addition formula for velocities
> that he obtained directly from relativistic kinematics
> (and nothing else)
> was his first confirmation that he had to be on the right path.

Yes. Probably before 1905.




-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671041

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 31.05.2026 22:19, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> I have made a new version of my article about stellar aberration:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
> >>
> >> Comments will be appreciated.
> > 
> > Once upon a time,
> > the aberration *as observed with a water-filled telescope*
> > was considered to be a crucial experiment. (Airy 1870)
> > (the observed aberration is not affected)
> 
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspl/article/20/130-138/35/36940/IV-On-a-su
pposed-alteration-in-the-amount-of
> or
> https://tinyurl.com/29c9ph47
> I quote from the the abstract:
>   "A discussion has taken place on the Continent, conducted
>    partly in the 'Astronomische Nachrichten,' partly in independent
>    pamphlets, on the change of direction which a ray of light will
>    receive (as inferred from the Undulatory Theory of Light) when
>    traverses a refracting medium which has a motion of translation."
> 
> They thought 'stellar aberration' was caused by refraction.
> If you assume that the atmosphere drags the ether 100%,
> then the refraction would be arctan(v/c) ≈ v/c ≈ 20.5"
> where v = the orbital speed of Earth and c = speed of light.
> This is the same value as the observed aberration, but the
> direction is exactly opposite to what is observed.
> If the telescope was filled with water,then the refraction
> within the water would be ≈ nv/c  where n is the index of
> refraction. This was not observed.
> So this ether drag theory is falsified twice.
> 
> Einstein knew what aberration was, so it didn't surprise
> him that filling the telescope with water had no effect.

You seem to be unaware of the issues, before special relativity.
Have a look at for example
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259844791_Water-filled_telescopes>
The result is indeed obvious *if you have special relativity*.
When you are inventing it the effect must come out right.
 
> > IIRC, Einstein is on record as having said that this experiment,
> > togther with the partial aether dragging of Fizeau,
> > was what convinced him that relativity had to be right. [1]
> 
> Yes. Fizeau's experiment was very important.
> Einstein wrote about that in §13 in his popular book
> "Relativitëtstheorie".
> He points out that Fizeau's equation W = w + v(1-1/n?)
> is approximately equal to the equation that follows from SR.
> This book was published in 1916, but since Fizeau's experiment
> was made in 1851 I am sure he had considered it, maybe before 1905.
> 
> See:
> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf
> 
> > 
> > Your paper might be improved by adding a section or footnote
> > on observing the aberration under such circumstances,
> 
> And what circumstances might that be?
> Filling the telescope with water? :-)

Yes, that is precisely what Airy did.
(actually, he built a special purpose telescope for it)

> This "dragged ether" nonsense is utterly irrelevant to
> stellar aberration.

Einstein didn't agree with you.
It is an observed effect that points the way to SR,
and it has to come out right, also for a water-filled telescope.

> No point in referring to it in my article:
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

You asked for comments, you got one.
Your choice, if you want to ignore the history.

> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> > [1] In other words, the addition formula for velocities
> > that he obtained directly from relativistic kinematics
> > (and nothing else)
> > was his first confirmation that he had to be on the right path.
> 
> Yes. Probably before 1905.

The point of Einstein's SR here (both for Fizeau and aberration)
was that he replaced a very cumbersome dynamic explanation using
Maxwell's equations and the Aether by a simple kinematic explanation.
(the electromagnetic calculation is so difficult
 that only a grandmaster like Lorentz could pull it off)

Jan

And another comment:
Your reference to electromagnetic phenomena such as light is spurious.
If, for example, we will ever have a sufficiently accurate
neutrino telescope we'll find that neutrinos
show just the same aberation.
The aberration is purely kinematic effect.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web