Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #647198 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-09 14:24 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-10 15:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 16:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 15:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:05 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:08 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:43 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:54 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:06 +0800
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:04 +0800
Re: space-telescopes and running-constants and BB/SS and DM/DE, Was "... predict any measurement results or not" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 07:29 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:08 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 12:37 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 15:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:02 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 15:13 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:23 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:01 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:24 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:56 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 18:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 16:34 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:48 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 14:46 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:03 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 15:28 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:39 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 16:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 14:48 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 17:30 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 15:39 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:23 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 16:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 08:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 12:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:32 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 15:02 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 18:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:38 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 20:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-15 20:33 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 06:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 12:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 13:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 16:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:57 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 23:10 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:34 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:29 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 22:47 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 23:35 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:40 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:45 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 17:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Sammie Niemczyk <anze@isa.pl> - 2026-08-17 19:12 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Tronny Bobienski <kyekbn@sknny.pl> - 2026-08-19 12:38 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-16 22:52 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 14:40 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 18:19 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:33 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-15 10:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:22 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 17:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:16 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 08:56 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-16 08:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-18 09:02 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 11:26 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 14:35 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 12:46 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:25 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:29 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:51 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:57 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:27 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:43 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:50 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:56 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:03 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:22 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:26 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:34 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-19 16:34 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-18 07:52 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lowen Chukhnov <enuh@hlclk.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:54 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Shea Lupov <alell@eus.ru> - 2026-08-14 16:26 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:29 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 06:58 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:37 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:55 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 18:23 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 01:59 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Torre Kaczka <rz@oktreka.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 14:00 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Clayburn Ruzanov <nuc@braonala.ru> - 2026-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 22:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-12 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 21:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:07 +0800
Re: Light-Speed Rest-Frame theory, Was: "... predict any measurement results or not" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 07:38 -0700
Re: Light-Speed Rest-Frame theory, Was: "... predict any measurement results or not" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-23 05:30 +0800
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 19:21 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:12 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 18:17 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 23:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:19 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 20:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-11 10:53 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 12:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Peter Balagurov <pvaepgt@eaatp.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Elwood Bahtov <lehtb@oato.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 12:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ee21M5trgl-ATLtsjrmgpffCphk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647304 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief
>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
>>>>>>>>>> equations
>>>>>>>>>> or predictions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "identical clocks"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized
>>>>>> clocks
>>>>>> are equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
>>>>> they're mutually exclusive.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that
>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>>> sync....
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> Your claim is now:
>>>>
>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are
>>>> mutually exclusive."
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
>>>>
>>>> The construction is:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
>>>>
>>>> 2. Synchronize them.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
>>>>
>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore
>>>>
>>>> - identical;
>>>>
>>>> - synchronized.
>>>>
>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
>>>>
>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks.
>>>>
>>>> Place them side by side.
>>>>
>>>> Adjust them so that both display
>>>>
>>>> 12:00:00.
>>>>
>>>> Are they identical?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Are they synchronized?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore
>>>>
>>>> identical AND synchronized
>>>>
>>>> is perfectly possible.
>>>>
>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
>>>>
>>>> Two clocks may be
>>>>
>>>> - identical but not synchronized;
>>>>
>>>> - synchronized but not identical;
>>>>
>>>> - identical and synchronized;
>>>>
>>>> - neither.
>>>>
>>>> There is no logical contradiction.
>>>>
>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
>>>>
>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the clocks
>>>> at a
>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure.
>>>>
>>>> Those are different concepts.
>>>>
>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> You write:
>>>>
>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>> sync."
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
>>>
>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
>>>
>>>
>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work,
>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
>>>
>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
>>> idiot.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You are changing the statement again.
>>
>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
>
> Don't give a damn to what your insane
> Shit mumbles or not.
> They're not in sync = they don't work.
> You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
"measuring time according to its specification."
Being synchronized means
"having the same reading as another clock."
Those are different properties.
One can hold without the other.
Therefore
not synchronized != not working.
Now let us consider GPS.
You often present yourself as an information engineer.
Then you certainly know that every feedback control system requires two
things:
1. a prediction model;
2. a correction mechanism.
Without the prediction model, there is nothing to correct.
GPS is no exception.
The purpose of GPS is to keep satellite clocks synchronized with GPS
coordinate time.
That is the control objective.
It is not the physical model.
Before any correction can be computed, GPS must predict how each clock
would evolve naturally.
Otherwise the control software would have no way to determine
- when to apply a correction;
- in which direction;
- by how much.
This is elementary control theory.
And the published GPS model does exactly that.
It predicts the natural evolution of satellite clocks, including
velocity-dependent and gravitational effects, and then applies the
appropriate corrections. The corrections are computed relative to GPS
coordinate time, not used as a replacement for the physical model.
So synchronization is not the model.
Synchronization is the objective.
The model is what tells you how clocks drift away from that objective.
Finally, you once described yourself as "one of the best logicians
Humanity ever had."
Then you should immediately recognize the logical error here.
You keep replacing
"the clocks no longer display the same reading"
by
"the clocks no longer work."
The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.
That is a non sequitur.
If you believe it does, then please provide the missing logical step.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 14:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbac4198838a6e$2032457$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647305 |
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>>>>> equations >>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>> clocks >>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>> sync.... >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>> >>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are >>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper. >>>>> >>>>> The construction is: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>> >>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>> >>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>> >>>>> - identical; >>>>> >>>>> - synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>> >>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>> >>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>> >>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>> >>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>> >>>>> Are they identical? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore >>>>> >>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>> >>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>> >>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>> >>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>> >>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>> >>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>> >>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>> >>>>> - neither. >>>>> >>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>> >>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks. >>>>> >>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>> clocks at a >>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>> >>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>> >>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> You write: >>>>> >>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>> sync." >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized". >>>> >>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks. >>>> >>>> >>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>> >>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>> idiot. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> You are changing the statement again. >>> >>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >> >> Don't give a damn to what your insane >> Shit mumbles or not. >> They're not in sync = they don't work. >> You may check GPS. > > Your premise is false. > > Working correctly means Sure. In your mad religion correct is whatever your mad guru announce to be correct, proper is whatever your mad guru announce to be proper, good is whatever your mad guru announce to be good - and if it doesn't work it's "spacetime" to blame, not your mad guru. I know that. Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, poor brainwashed idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kY9oiDROD-uZAg_qN1Q58O4Pqaw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647306 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief
>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
>>>>>>>>>>>> equations
>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized
>>>>>>>> clocks
>>>>>>>> are equivalent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that
>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>>>>> sync....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your claim is now:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are
>>>>>> mutually exclusive."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The construction is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - identical;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - synchronized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Place them side by side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 12:00:00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they identical?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they synchronized?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>>
>>>>>> identical AND synchronized
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is perfectly possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two clocks may be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - identical and synchronized;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
>>>>>> clocks at a
>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are different concepts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>>>> sync."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work,
>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
>>>>> idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> You are changing the statement again.
>>>>
>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
>>>
>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane
>>> Shit mumbles or not.
>>> They're not in sync = they don't work.
>>> You may check GPS.
>>
>> Your premise is false.
>>
>> Working correctly means
>
> Sure. In your mad religion correct
> is whatever your mad guru announce to
> be correct, proper is whatever your mad
> guru announce to be proper, good is
> whatever your mad guru announce to
> be good - and if it doesn't work
> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
> mad guru.
> I know that.
>
> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
> poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
"not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
10 us,
10 ms,
or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be
resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
They simply do not remain synchronized with GPS system time unless
corrections are applied.
The whole purpose of GPS timing is therefore
not to repair broken clocks,
but
to maintain synchronization.
Those are two different notions.
More fundamentally, your implication
not synchronized => not working
is false by a single counterexample.
Take two perfectly functioning clocks.
Deliberately set one 10 seconds ahead of the other.
Both work.
They are not synchronized.
Therefore your implication is false.
No relativity is needed.
No Einstein is needed.
Just elementary logic.
Finally, you once described yourself as
"one of the best logicians Humanity ever had."
Then this should be an easy exercise.
Please provide the logical derivation of
not synchronized => not working.
I have asked several times.
You keep repeating the conclusion.
You never provide the missing inference.
In engineering, synchronization is a state.
Correct operation is a specification.
Confusing the two is a category error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 15:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbad92821b3381$2021555$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647307 |
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least >>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 >>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>> >>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized". >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>> idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>> >>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>> >>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>> You may check GPS. >>> >>> Your premise is false. >>> >>> Working correctly means >> >> Sure. In your mad religion correct >> is whatever your mad guru announce to >> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >> guru announce to be proper, good is >> whatever your mad guru announce to >> be good - and if it doesn't work >> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >> mad guru. >> I know that. >> >> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >> poor brainwashed idiot. > > Maciej, > > You keep repeating > > "not synchronized = not working." > > Repeating it does not make it true. > > As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer, > you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. > > Consider a distributed computer system. > > Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by > > 10 us, > 10 ms, > or 10 s. > > They are no longer synchronized. > > Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? > > Of course not. > > It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be > resynchronized. > > GPS is exactly the same. > > Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. > > They are not "broken". That's what a postulate of some made idiot is asserting, sure. GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, however. So - yes, they are. Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that his perfect differently clocks will not keep sync (except of some practically almost unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot - he was right about that. Yes, identical and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QB_o6WJ1U5rZbpcei5YHXDdPW68@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647308 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief
>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and
>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that
>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>>>>>>> sync....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your claim is now:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized
>>>>>>>> clocks are
>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905
>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The construction is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - identical;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - synchronized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Place them side by side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 12:00:00.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are they identical?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - neither.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the
>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
>>>>>>>> clocks at a
>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You write:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't
>>>>>>>> keep sync."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the
>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work,
>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are changing the statement again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane
>>>>> Shit mumbles or not.
>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work.
>>>>> You may check GPS.
>>>>
>>>> Your premise is false.
>>>>
>>>> Working correctly means
>>>
>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct
>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to
>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad
>>> guru announce to be proper, good is
>>> whatever your mad guru announce to
>>> be good - and if it doesn't work
>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
>>> mad guru.
>>> I know that.
>>>
>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
>>> poor brainwashed idiot.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> You keep repeating
>>
>> "not synchronized = not working."
>>
>> Repeating it does not make it true.
>>
>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer,
>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
>>
>> Consider a distributed computer system.
>>
>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
>>
>> 10 us,
>> 10 ms,
>> or 10 s.
>>
>> They are no longer synchronized.
>>
>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be
>> resynchronized.
>>
>> GPS is exactly the same.
>>
>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
> >
> > They are not "broken".
>
>
> That's what a postulate of some made idiot
> is asserting, sure.
> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
> however. So - yes, they are.
>
> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
> his perfect differently clocks will not keep
> sync (except of some practically almost
> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
> - he was right about that. Yes, identical
> and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
No, they do not.
Satellite clocks are among the most accurate clocks ever built.
Their fractional frequency stability is extraordinarily good.
GPS engineers do not repair defective clocks every day.
They predict how correctly functioning clocks evolve under known physical
conditions and compensate for those effects.
That is fundamentally different.
If you still insist that GPS considers those clocks "broken", then please
answer a very simple question.
Broken according to which specification?
A clock specification usually contains quantities such as
- frequency accuracy;
- frequency stability;
- phase noise;
- Allan deviation;
- environmental sensitivity.
Which one do GPS satellite clocks fail to satisfy?
Please be specific.
Simply observing that two clocks no longer display the same number is not
evidence that either clock is defective.
Otherwise every clock set to a different time zone would also be
"broken".
More importantly, you are still confusing two completely different
concepts.
A clock has a specification.
A system has a synchronization objective.
Those are not the same thing.
GPS does not require clocks to "naturally remain synchronized."
GPS continuously estimates their relative offsets and applies the
appropriate corrections.
That is exactly what every distributed timing system does.
Finally, you repeatedly describe yourself as an information engineer.
Then you know that synchronization is a property of a collection of
clocks.
Correct operation is a property of each individual clock.
Confusing these two properties is a category error.
You also once described yourself as "one of the best logicians Humanity
ever had."
Then this should be easy.
Please provide the logical derivation of
not synchronized => clock defective.
Not an assertion.
A derivation.
You have repeated the conclusion many times.
You have never supplied the missing inference.
If a GPS satellite is switched off on the launch pad, then switched on
again one hour later, it is one hour out of synchronization with the GPS
system.
Has the clock suddenly become defective?
If not, your implication
not synchronized => broken
is false.
If yes, then every clock restarted after maintenance is defective.
Which answer do you choose?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 18:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbb94652492245$2032733$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647309 |
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 >>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>> >>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>> >>>>> Working correctly means >>>> >>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>> mad guru. >>>> I know that. >>>> >>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> You keep repeating >>> >>> "not synchronized = not working." >>> >>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>> >>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer, >>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>> >>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>> >>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>> >>> 10 us, >>> 10 ms, >>> or 10 s. >>> >>> They are no longer synchronized. >>> >>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>> >>> Of course not. >>> >>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>> resynchronized. >>> >>> GPS is exactly the same. >>> >>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >> > >> > They are not "broken". >> >> >> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >> is asserting, sure. >> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >> however. So - yes, they are. >> >> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >> sync (except of some practically almost >> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. > > Maciej, > > Now you are making a very strong claim. > > You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". > > No, they do not. No, they do not. Why would they? The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just like the engineers assumed they should. If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HKYCST4wEYE440_eam8wp7fG9ms@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647313 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and
>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that
>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep
>>>>>>>>>>> sync....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized
>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905
>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The construction is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - identical;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - neither.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the
>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a
>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You write:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't
>>>>>>>>>> keep sync."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the
>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work,
>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
>>>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane
>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not.
>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work.
>>>>>>> You may check GPS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your premise is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Working correctly means
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct
>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to
>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad
>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is
>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to
>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work
>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
>>>>> mad guru.
>>>>> I know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> You keep repeating
>>>>
>>>> "not synchronized = not working."
>>>>
>>>> Repeating it does not make it true.
>>>>
>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer,
>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
>>>>
>>>> Consider a distributed computer system.
>>>>
>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
>>>>
>>>> 10 us,
>>>> 10 ms,
>>>> or 10 s.
>>>>
>>>> They are no longer synchronized.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.
>>>>
>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be
>>>> resynchronized.
>>>>
>>>> GPS is exactly the same.
>>>>
>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
>>> >
>>> > They are not "broken".
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot
>>> is asserting, sure.
>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
>>> however. So - yes, they are.
>>>
>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep
>>> sync (except of some practically almost
>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical
>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> Now you are making a very strong claim.
>>
>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
>
>>
>> No, they do not.
>
> No, they do not. Why would they?
> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
> like the engineers assumed they should.
>
> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
> however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
"The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
not synchronized => broken.
Because if the clocks naturally drift away from t'=t and are then
corrected back to t'=t, they are not broken.
They are simply being synchronized.
That is exactly how every distributed timing system works.
More importantly, you still have not answered the central question.
How does GPS know what correction to apply?
The answer cannot be
"because we want t'=t."
That is merely the objective.
The correction requires a quantitative prediction of how each clock
would evolve without correction.
Otherwise the software has no way to compute
- when to correct,
- by how much,
- or even in which direction.
That prediction is the physical model.
The synchronization algorithm is built on top of it.
It does not replace it.
So I ask again:
What are the equations of the physical model that GPS uses instead of
special and general relativity?
Not the objective.
The equations.
You have been claiming for days that they exist.
Please write them down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 19:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbbb56643c9b30$2021820$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647314 |
On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>> I know that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> You keep repeating >>>>> >>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>> >>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>> engineer, >>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>> >>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>> >>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>> >>>>> 10 us, >>>>> 10 ms, >>>>> or 10 s. >>>>> >>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. >>>>> >>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>> resynchronized. >>>>> >>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>> >>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>> > >>>> > They are not "broken". >>>> >>>> >>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>> is asserting, sure. >>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>> >>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>> >>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >> >>> >>> No, they do not. >> >> No, they do not. Why would they? >> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >> like the engineers assumed they should. >> >> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >> however. > > Maciej, > > Thank you. > > This is actually progress. > > A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite > clocks "broken." > > Now you say something different. > > You write: > > "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." > > Exactly. > > That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. > > It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. > > In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that > > not synchronized => broken. Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like the engineers postulated them to be. Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling madmen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gQEkWxQ6VqU6whwmEmDxwlKjOgw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647315 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 19:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>>> I know that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep repeating >>>>>> >>>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>>> >>>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>> engineer, >>>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>>> >>>>>> 10 us, >>>>>> 10 ms, >>>>>> or 10 s. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>> >>>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>> resynchronized. >>>>>> >>>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>>> > >>>>> > They are not "broken". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>>> is asserting, sure. >>>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>>> >>>> Maciej, >>>> >>>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>>> >>>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >>> >>>> >>>> No, they do not. >>> >>> No, they do not. Why would they? >>> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >>> like the engineers assumed they should. >>> >>> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >>> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >>> however. >> >> Maciej, >> >> Thank you. >> >> This is actually progress. >> >> A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite >> clocks "broken." >> >> Now you say something different. >> >> You write: >> >> "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." >> >> Exactly. >> >> That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. >> >> It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. >> >> In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that >> >> not synchronized => broken. > > Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and > the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like > the engineers postulated them to be. > Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling > madmen. As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately notice the category error. "Identical" is a property of an individual clock. "Synchronized" is a relation between two or more clocks. Properties and relations are not the same kind of predicate. Confusing them is a first-year logic mistake. Ironically, your criticism misses the whole point. Einstein never claimed that identical clocks remain synchronized. His theory predicts the circumstances under which they cease to remain synchronized. That is not a bug. That is the prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 19:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbbcafcec4494b$2030199$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647316 |
On 8/14/2026 7:27 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 19:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>> another". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>>>> I know that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You keep repeating >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>>> engineer, >>>>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10 us, >>>>>>> 10 ms, >>>>>>> or 10 s. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>>> resynchronized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > They are not "broken". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>>>> is asserting, sure. >>>>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>>>> >>>>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, they do not. >>>> >>>> No, they do not. Why would they? >>>> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >>>> like the engineers assumed they should. >>>> >>>> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >>>> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >>>> however. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> This is actually progress. >>> >>> A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite >>> clocks "broken." >>> >>> Now you say something different. >>> >>> You write: >>> >>> "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>> That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. >>> >>> It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. >>> >>> In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that >>> >>> not synchronized => broken. >> >> Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and >> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >> the engineers postulated them to be. >> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >> madmen. > > As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately > notice the category error. > > "Identical" is a property of an individual clock. Excuse me, "identical" is what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f5bjS_-xL_PdnK54ntAhqweAzUI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647317 |
Le 14/08/2026 à 19:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/14/2026 7:27 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 14/08/2026 à 19:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>>>>> I know that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You keep repeating >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>>>> engineer, >>>>>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 10 us, >>>>>>>> 10 ms, >>>>>>>> or 10 s. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>>>> resynchronized. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > They are not "broken". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>>>>> is asserting, sure. >>>>>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>>>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>>>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>>>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>>>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>>>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>>>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, they do not. >>>>> >>>>> No, they do not. Why would they? >>>>> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >>>>> like the engineers assumed they should. >>>>> >>>>> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >>>>> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >>>>> however. >>>> >>>> Maciej, >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> This is actually progress. >>>> >>>> A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite >>>> clocks "broken." >>>> >>>> Now you say something different. >>>> >>>> You write: >>>> >>>> "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." >>>> >>>> Exactly. >>>> >>>> That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. >>>> >>>> It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. >>>> >>>> In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that >>>> >>>> not synchronized => broken. >>> >>> Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and >>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>> madmen. >> >> As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately >> notice the category error. >> >> "Identical" is a property of an individual clock. > > Excuse me, "identical" is what? Maciej, We are probably using different meanings of the word "identical". Please define it. Do you mean (A) same physical construction? (B) same calibration? (C) same displayed reading? (D) something else? Because throughout this discussion you seem to switch between those meanings. In engineering, those are different concepts. In Einstein's 1905 paper, "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A" clearly refers to (A). Synchronization is introduced afterwards. So Einstein explicitly distinguishes the two notions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbbecf6460c62d$2030203$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647318 |
On 8/14/2026 7:53 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 19:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 7:27 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 19:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>>>>>> I know that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep repeating >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>>>>> engineer, >>>>>>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10 us, >>>>>>>>> 10 ms, >>>>>>>>> or 10 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and >>>>>>>>> must be >>>>>>>>> resynchronized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > They are not "broken". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>>>>>> is asserting, sure. >>>>>>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>>>>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>>>>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>>>>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>>>>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>>>>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>>>>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be >>>>>>> "broken". >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, they do not. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, they do not. Why would they? >>>>>> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >>>>>> like the engineers assumed they should. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >>>>>> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >>>>>> however. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> This is actually progress. >>>>> >>>>> A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite >>>>> clocks "broken." >>>>> >>>>> Now you say something different. >>>>> >>>>> You write: >>>>> >>>>> "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. >>>>> >>>>> That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. >>>>> >>>>> It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that >>>>> >>>>> not synchronized => broken. >>>> >>>> Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and >>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>> madmen. >>> >>> As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately >>> notice the category error. >>> >>> "Identical" is a property of an individual clock. >> >> Excuse me, "identical" is what? > > Maciej, > > We are probably using different meanings of the word "identical". Mo, we are not. You are just trying to change the subject. > > Please define it. > > Do you mean > > (A) same physical construction? same to what? > > (B) same calibration? same to what? > > (C) same displayed reading? same to what? > > (D) something else? > > Because throughout this discussion you seem to switch between those > meanings. > > In engineering, those are different concepts. > > In Einstein's 1905 paper, "another clock in all respects resembling the > one at A" clearly refers to (A). > > Synchronization is introduced afterwards. > > So Einstein explicitly distinguishes the two notions. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 20:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115qbd7$3k19k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #647315 |
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>
>
> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
> the engineers postulated them to be.
> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
> madmen.
>
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
The word "identical" may have different meanings,
but when Einstein said:
"another clock in all respects resembling the one at A".
Then the property of the two clocks that must be equal (identical)
is their _rate_ (frequency). Their reading (phase) do not have to
be equal; they do not have to be synchronised.
A "postulate" is a fact that always must be true if
the theory based on the postulate is valid.
(e.g. the speed of light is c in all inertial frames)
You cannot _postulate_ two clocks to be synchronised,
because two clocks do not have to be synchronous.
So let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the
SI-definition of second inbuilt.
quote continue:
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
quote continue:
"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
This is partly due to gravitational blue shift, and
partly due to the speed of the SV relative to the non
rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
So to make the clock in the SV to have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronise
them. But that's another story.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 21:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc11f2905d294b$2035455$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647335 |
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> >> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >> the engineers postulated them to be. >> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >> madmen. >> > > Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" > and "synchronise" mean. Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like the engineers postulated them to be. Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-p25ZDQY7Wp4hff-nf5sZ8wEHzk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647336 |
Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>
>>>
>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
>>> the engineers postulated them to be.
>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
>>> madmen.
>>>
>>
>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
>> and "synchronise" mean.
>
> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
>
> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
> the engineers postulated them to be.
> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
> idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
frequency (clock rate)
phase (clock reading)
synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It continuously maintains the third.
Those are not the same thing.
The GPS Interface Specification states:
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This is a specification of the CLOCK RATE.
It is not a specification that every satellite clock shall permanently
display the same reading.
In fact, the document immediately continues by stating that the onboard
oscillator is intentionally offset by
Delta f/f = -4.4647e-10
to compensate for relativistic effects.
This means that the oscillator installed in the satellite is NOT adjusted
to emit exactly 10.23 MHz in its own local frame.
Instead, it is deliberately preset to
10.2299999954326 MHz
so that, once both gravitational and kinematic relativistic effects are
taken into account, observers in the Earth-centered frame receive
10.2300000000000 MHz.
This is not a repair.
It is not a clock correction.
It is not because the clocks are "broken".
It is a relativistic pre-compensation applied BEFORE launch.
Exactly as predicted by relativity.
Paul summarized it perfectly:
"When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronize
them. But that's another story."
That single sentence completely refutes your repeated claim that
"identical clocks" and "synchronized clocks" are mutually exclusive.
Equal rate is a property of an individual clock.
Synchronization is a relation between several clocks.
Those are logically different concepts.
An information engineer should immediately recognize that distinction.
In distributed computing, for example, every machine may have a perfectly
working oscillator while their clocks differ by milliseconds or seconds.
The oscillators are functioning correctly.
The clocks simply need resynchronization.
GPS is exactly the same.
The atomic clocks work extraordinarily well.
Synchronization is maintained by continuously estimating and correcting
their phase offsets.
Nothing in that process suggests that the clocks are defective.
There is another remarkable point.
For several days you have been claiming that
"GPS does not use Einstein."
Yet the official GPS specification explicitly says
"The clock rates are offset to compensate for relativistic effects."
and immediately adds that
"This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity."
Those are not Einstein's words.
Those are not my words.
Those are the words of the official GPS Interface Specification.
So your claim is no longer merely unsupported.
It is directly contradicted by the very system you repeatedly invoke as
your authority.
Finally, notice another irony.
You repeatedly presented yourself as an "information engineer" and even
claimed to be "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had."
Yet throughout this discussion you have consistently confused
- frequency with phase,
- a property of one clock with a relation between several clocks,
- synchronization with correctness,
- and a relativistic frequency offset with a malfunction.
Those are elementary distinctions.
If someone made those confusions in a paper on distributed systems or
clock synchronization algorithms, they would not survive peer review.
Exactly the same applies here.
For days you appealed to GPS as your authority.
Then someone quoted the official GPS specification.
Instead of explaining why the specification was wrong, you called him a
liar.
That is probably the clearest indication so far that your argument has run
out of technical content.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 06:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc3034c4c10fb0$2033337$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647337 |
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> >>>> >>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>> madmen. >>>> >>> >>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" >>> and "synchronise" mean. >> >> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected >> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. >> >> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >> the engineers postulated them to be. >> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >> idiot. > > Maciej, > > Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing > throughout this discussion. > > There are three different concepts. > > frequency (clock rate) > > phase (clock reading) > > synchronization (equal phase) > > GPS explicitly specifies the first. It specifies - that it "would appear". Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper writing that, otherwise "would appear" would never take place in any engineering specification. Nobady has to care about something that "would appear". If you weren't such a dishonest piece of shit you would admit, and Paul as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <laGz-PeoWHrsngqRr9XmD4QVi6Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647340 |
Le 16/08/2026 à 06:55, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be.
>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
>>>>> madmen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
>>>> and "synchronise" mean.
>>>
>>> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
>>> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
>>>
>>> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
>>> the engineers postulated them to be.
>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
>>> idiot.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
>> throughout this discussion.
>>
>> There are three different concepts.
>>
>> frequency (clock rate)
>>
>> phase (clock reading)
>>
>> synchronization (equal phase)
>>
>> GPS explicitly specifies the first.
>
> It specifies - that it "would appear".
> Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
> writing that, otherwise "would appear"
> would never take place in any engineering
> specification.
> Nobady has to care about something that
> "would appear". If you weren't such a
> dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
> and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
"would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
The GPS specification distinguishes between
- the frequency generated by the onboard oscillator,
and
- the frequency observed in the Earth-centered reference frame.
Those are not the same quantity.
Because of gravitational and kinematic frequency shifts, an oscillator
that
physically generates exactly 10.23 MHz on board would not be observed as
10.23 MHz on the ground.
That is precisely why the specification continues by stating that the
onboard clock is intentionally offset by
Delta f/f = -4.4647e-10.
The offset is chosen so that it WOULD APPEAR as 10.23 MHz to an observer
in
the reference frame used by the GPS system.
That is not philosophical language.
It is the operational specification of the system.
In fact, if the specification had simply said
"the onboard oscillator runs at exactly 10.23 MHz"
without stating "as it appears to an observer on the ground", the document
would have been technically ambiguous.
Ironically, the wording you criticize is there precisely because the
authors are careful engineers.
Finally, notice the pattern.
Paul quoted the specification.
You now criticize the wording of the specification.
But you still do not explain why the relativistic frequency pre-offset
Delta f/f = -4.4647e-10
appears in the specification at all.
That remains the central question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 12:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc4295744bca29$2048849$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647344 |
On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote: > Le 16/08/2026 à 06:55, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>>>> madmen. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" >>>>> and "synchronise" mean. >>>> >>>> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected >>>> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. >>>> >>>> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>> idiot. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing >>> throughout this discussion. >>> >>> There are three different concepts. >>> >>> frequency (clock rate) >>> >>> phase (clock reading) >>> >>> synchronization (equal phase) >>> >>> GPS explicitly specifies the first. >> >> It specifies - that it "would appear". >> Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper >> writing that, otherwise "would appear" >> would never take place in any engineering >> specification. >> Nobady has to care about something that >> "would appear". If you weren't such a >> dishonest piece of shit you would admit, >> and Paul as well. > > Maciej, > > No. > > The phrase > > "would appear" > > is exactly what an engineer should write. If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein, sure. That means: Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!! He has predicted that it would appear!!! And it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 10:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EeQnHwdQSNSojtlTCsCjmG1tN38@jntp> |
| In reply to | #647345 |
Le 16/08/2026 à 12:32, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 16/08/2026 à 06:55, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
>>>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be.
>>>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
>>>>>>> madmen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
>>>>>> and "synchronise" mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
>>>>> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be.
>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
>>>>> idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
>>>> throughout this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> There are three different concepts.
>>>>
>>>> frequency (clock rate)
>>>>
>>>> phase (clock reading)
>>>>
>>>> synchronization (equal phase)
>>>>
>>>> GPS explicitly specifies the first.
>>>
>>> It specifies - that it "would appear".
>>> Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
>>> writing that, otherwise "would appear"
>>> would never take place in any engineering
>>> specification.
>>> Nobady has to care about something that
>>> "would appear". If you weren't such a
>>> dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
>>> and Paul as well.
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> The phrase
>>
>> "would appear"
>>
>> is exactly what an engineer should write.
>
> If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein,
> sure.
>
> That means:
> Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!!
> He has predicted that it would appear!!! And
> it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
Maciej,
You are mocking the sentence
"it would appear"
as if making a prediction were somehow ridiculous.
But making quantitative predictions is precisely what physical theories
are
supposed to do.
GPS engineers did not write
"Praise Einstein!"
They wrote an engineering specification.
That specification says:
if the onboard oscillator is preset to
10.2299999954326 MHz,
then it will APPEAR as
10.2300000000 MHz
to an observer in the Earth-centered reference frame.
That is not philosophy.
That is a quantitative prediction.
The satellites were built accordingly.
The prediction was tested.
It worked.
That is exactly how engineering works.
In fact, every engineering specification contains statements of the form
"if the system is built like this,
it will appear, produce or measure that."
Without such predictions, engineering would be impossible.
So I find it rather ironic that you ridicule the very notion of
prediction.
Science progresses precisely because theories make quantitative
predictions
that can later be compared with measurements.
The GPS specification is an excellent example of that process.
It predicts a relativistic frequency offset.
The hardware is adjusted accordingly.
The measured frequencies agree.
That is not worship.
That is engineering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 13:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc444104a31d6e$2048851$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #647346 |
On 8/16/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: > Le 16/08/2026 à 12:32, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 16/08/2026 à 06:55, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>>>>>> madmen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" >>>>>>> and "synchronise" mean. >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected >>>>>> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>>>> idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing >>>>> throughout this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> There are three different concepts. >>>>> >>>>> frequency (clock rate) >>>>> >>>>> phase (clock reading) >>>>> >>>>> synchronization (equal phase) >>>>> >>>>> GPS explicitly specifies the first. >>>> >>>> It specifies - that it "would appear". >>>> Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper >>>> writing that, otherwise "would appear" >>>> would never take place in any engineering >>>> specification. >>>> Nobady has to care about something that >>>> "would appear". If you weren't such a >>>> dishonest piece of shit you would admit, >>>> and Paul as well. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> The phrase >>> >>> "would appear" >>> >>> is exactly what an engineer should write. >> >> If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein, >> sure. >> >> That means: >> Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!! >> He has predicted that it would appear!!! And >> it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!! > > Maciej, > > You are mocking the sentence > > "it would appear" > > as if making a prediction were somehow ridiculous. > > But making quantitative predictions is precisely what physical theories are > supposed to do. Sure. It can, for instance, predict that a day compared to 1/86400 of a day will give 99766. Praise our idiot guru and his magnificient predictions. > > GPS engineers did not write > > "Praise Einstein!" But that was the meaning of this nonsense put into serious documentation by a some brainwashed fanatic. They wrote an engineering specification. > > That specification says: > > if the onboard oscillator is preset to > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, > > then it will APPEAR as > > 10.2300000000 MHz > > to an observer in the Earth-centered reference frame. So you didn't even read Paul's quoting. Why am I not surprised.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web