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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671087 > unrolled thread

Nobody understands relativity

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

Contents

  Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 12:59 +0200
    Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:07 +0000
    Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-06 20:19 +0200
      Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 21:23 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 16:57 -0700
        Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:13 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 08:25 -0700
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:06 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:21 -0700
                  Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:50 -0700
                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:59 -0700
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:46 -0700
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-09 13:41 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:15 -0700
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity marika <marika5000@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 05:01 +0000
        Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:30 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:37 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-07 11:40 +0000
            Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:58 +0200
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-06-08 10:17 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:43 -0700
          Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:48 -0700
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 07:41 +0200
              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 09:50 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 10:46 +0200
                  Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 19:16 +0200
                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 19:42 +0200
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 16:54 -0700
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 07:34 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:59 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:06 +0200
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:22 +0200
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 20:55 +0200
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:27 +0200
                                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 21:37 +0200
                      Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:32 +0200
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:00 +0200
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:56 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 21:01 +0200
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:46 +0200
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 22:03 +0200
                        Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:10 -0700
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:22 -0700
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:31 -0700
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:40 -0700
                          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:05 +0200
                            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 08:39 -0700
                              Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 14:53 -0700
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 18:20 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 20:48 -0700
                                    Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:13 -0700
                                      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:42 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 22:54 -0700
                                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-12 13:39 -0700
                                  Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:05 -0700
      Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-06 21:24 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:45 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-07 15:14 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Auburn Morandi <bia@auuur.it> - 2026-06-07 15:39 +0000
    Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#671119

Am Sonntag000007, 07.06.2026 um 13:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 07.06.2026 13:37, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
>> On 07/06/2026 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
>>>
>>> Facts:
>>> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
>>> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
>>> The difference is 19.235 μs.
>>>
>>> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
>>> If yes, which one?
>>> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
>>> and how do you measure it?
>>>
>>> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
>>
>> How fucking pathetic, the level of inanity.
>>
>> Julio
>>
> 
> Does that mean that you think that "absolute time"
> don't exist, or is it only unmeasurable?
> 

I personally think, that time is local and 'absolute time' wouldn't make 
sense.

What we call 'time' cannot be universal for several reasons.

One reason: absolute time would require an 'external clock' and a 
mechanism, by which local clocks are synchronized with it.

Iow:

you would need some type of space outside the universe, where the big 
clock ticks and an external watchmaker, who winds it up.

Well, that's hard tobelieve, but eventually thinkable.

The bigger issue is the question, how the 'external clock' could control 
myriads of local clocks.

Another reason:

'absolute time' would be 'one dimensional' and runs only in one 
direction, which is the same everywhere.

That would cause numerous problem, like e.g.

wouldn't it violate energy conservation, if the entire universe pops out 
of a single point?

Or:

how would you balance angular momentum?

(In a big bang universe nothing could spin, if there is no counterpart 
spinning in the other direction)

How about particles?

If there are 'lefthanded' particles, then somewhere need to be 
righthanded particles in equal quantities.


...

Better is actually 'local time'.

Then the local axis of time defines a subset of spacetime, which is 
called 'universe' from that local perspective, while the rest is invisible.

Going to another location which a different local time would show a 
different universe, filled with different stars.


TH

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

#671113

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> Den 06.06.2026 21:23, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> > On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
> >>
> >> Obviously!
> >> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
> 
> Any particular reason why you snipped this?
> 
> |   The state of motion of an observer cannot affect the observed
> |   object in any way, but it can affect the observer's observations
> |   of the observed object.
> |
> | An observer who is moving relative to an object will
> | measure the object to be shorter that its proper length.
> | The object is unaffected and is not shortened.
> | An observer who is moving relative to a clock will measure
> | the rate of the clock to be slower than its proper rate.
> | The clock is unaffected and runs at its proper rate.
> 
> >
> > Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> > mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> > showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> > up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> > in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> > That's the point.
> 
> You are obviously very ignorant.
> QED!
> 
> If you think that it is something like "absolute time"
> you will stay confused for ever.
> 
> >
> >>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
> >>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/
> >>> content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
> >>>
> >>> To put it charitably...
> >>
> >> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
> >> you go wrong.
> >
> > You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
> > assuming you know any physics at all.
> 
> Your - whatever you call it - is unreadable gobbledegook.
> 
> >
> > Julio
> >
> 
> You did obviously not read this:
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> 
> Don't try to read it. You will not understand it.
> 
> But maybe you can answer the following question:
> 
> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
> 
> Facts:
> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
> The difference is 19.235 μs.
> 
> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
> If yeas, which one?
> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
> and how do you measure it?
> 
> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/



This isn't a testable idea — it's a freshman physics student discovering
relativity exists and mistaking confusion for profundity.

---



## 1. **You're asking a question that was settled in 1915 and pretending
it's novel**
The entire premise — "which clock shows absolute time?" — reveals you
haven't grasped that *there is no absolute time* in general relativity.
This isn't controversial. This isn't cutting-edge. Einstein killed
absolute time over a century ago. Your question is the equivalent of
asking "which direction is absolute down in space?" It's not a deep
puzzle. It's a category error.

## 2. **You've constructed a false dilemma with no escape hatch**
"Is it the orbital clock or the geoid clock?" Neither. Both are correct
*in their own reference frames*. You're demanding a single answer to a
question that presupposes a framework (Newtonian absolute time) that
doesn't exist. This is like asking whether the number 7 is sweet or
salty — the question itself is malformed.

## 3. **The 19.235 µs difference isn't a bug, it's general relativity
working exactly as predicted**
That time dilation is *expected*, *calculated in advance*, and
*corrected for* in GPS systems every single day. You've noticed a
textbook consequence of gravitational time dilation and are treating it
like an unsolved mystery. It's not. The GPS network compensates for this
with frequency adjustments before satellites even launch. You're
pointing at a solved engineering problem and asking why nobody's solved
it.

## 4. **"Correct absolute time" is undefined gibberish in this context**
You haven't specified what coordinate system you're working in. Are you
asking for proper time along a specific worldline? Coordinate time in
some chosen frame (ECI? GCRS? Barycentric?)? There is no "the" time —
there are infinite valid time coordinates depending on your foliation of
spacetime. Asking for "the correct absolute time" is like asking for
"the correct starting point" on a circle.

---



- **Hidden assumption:** That "time" is a single, universal,
frame-independent quantity waiting to be discovered.
 
  Reality: Time is observer-dependent. Every inertial and non-inertial
frame has its own valid notion of elapsed duration. You're smuggling in
Newtonian intuition and hoping nobody notices.

- **Magical premise:** That comparing two clocks in different
gravitational potentials will reveal which one is "right."

  Reality: Both are right. Both are measuring proper time along their
respective worldlines. The question "which is absolute?" is meaningless
without specifying a privileged reference frame — which general
relativity explicitly forbids.

- **Wishful thinking:** That this is a paradox or a gap in physics.

  Reality: This is *exactly* how relativistic physics works. The orbital
period in GPS satellite proper time differs from the orbital period in
Earth-surface proper time. This is predicted, measured, and compensated
for. There's no mystery here except in your misunderstanding.

---



This isn't a business idea or policy proposal, so most incentive
misalignments don't apply — but intellectually:

- **You're inviting ridicule from anyone who's taken a second course in
relativity.** Posting this question in a physics forum will get you
either ignored or linked to introductory GR textbooks.

- **If you're hoping to build something on this (a device, a measurement
standard, a startup):** You're building on a foundation of confusion.
The moment you talk to a physicist or metrologist, they'll tell you
exactly what I'm telling you now, but with more patience and fewer
expletives.

---



- **Why this cannot generalize:** You can't "measure absolute time"
because it doesn't exist as a measurable quantity. You can measure
proper time, coordinate time in a chosen frame, or time dilation between
frames — but not "absolute time."

- **Why this breaks under scrutiny:** General relativity is one of the
most tested theories in physics. GPS works. Gravitational wave detectors
work. Particle accelerators work. All of them depend on time dilation
being real and frame-dependent. Your question implicitly denies this
without offering an alternative framework.

- **Why this fails in practice:** Every timekeeping standard (TAI, UTC,
TT, etc.) is explicitly defined relative to a reference frame. The geoid
is used for terrestrial standards because it's convenient, not because
it's metaphysically privileged. If you're asking "what's the one true
time?", you're asking for something that has no operational definition.

---



- **The entire framing of the question.**  
  Stop asking "which clock is right?" Start asking "what is the proper
time along each worldline, and how do they relate in a given coordinate
system?"

- **The assumption that "absolute time" is a coherent concept.**  
  Replace it with: "coordinate time in [specific frame]" or "proper time
for [specific observer]."

- **The expectation that physics owes you a single answer.**  
  General relativity gives you a *framework* for relating times in
different frames. If you want a single number, you have to pick a frame
first. That's a human choice, not a physical fact.

---


 **The only non-embarrassing part of this:**  
You correctly identified that two clocks in different gravitational
potentials measure different elapsed times for the same orbital event.
That's accurate. The 19.235 µs number is real and measurable.
 **Why it's not enough:**  
Noticing a known effect isn't an idea. It's an observation. If you'd
asked "How do we define a practical standard for coordinate time given
this dilation?", that would be a real question with engineering and
metrological substance. But you didn't. You asked for "absolute time,"
which is physics word salad.

---



You've mistaken a textbook homework problem for a philosophical crisis,
and the only thing "absolute" here is how thoroughly you've
misunderstood the question you're trying to ask.







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#671114

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> Den 06.06.2026 21:23, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> > On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
> >>
> >> Obviously!
> >> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
> 
> Any particular reason why you snipped this?
> 
> |   The state of motion of an observer cannot affect the observed
> |   object in any way, but it can affect the observer's observations
> |   of the observed object.
> |
> | An observer who is moving relative to an object will
> | measure the object to be shorter that its proper length.
> | The object is unaffected and is not shortened.
> | An observer who is moving relative to a clock will measure
> | the rate of the clock to be slower than its proper rate.
> | The clock is unaffected and runs at its proper rate.
> 
> >
> > Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> > mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> > showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> > up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> > in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> > That's the point.
> 
> You are obviously very ignorant.
> QED!
> 
> If you think that it is something like "absolute time"
> you will stay confused for ever.
> 
> >
> >>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
> >>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/
> >>> content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
> >>>
> >>> To put it charitably...
> >>
> >> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
> >> you go wrong.
> >
> > You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
> > assuming you know any physics at all.
> 
> Your - whatever you call it - is unreadable gobbledegook.
> 
> >
> > Julio
> >
> 
> You did obviously not read this:
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> 
> Don't try to read it. You will not understand it.
> 
> But maybe you can answer the following question:
> 
> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
> 
> Facts:
> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
> The difference is 19.235 μs.
> 
> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
> If yeas, which one?
> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
> and how do you measure it?
> 
> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/


This is the intellectual equivalent of waving a stopwatch at Einstein
and declaring relativity "confusing" while missing the entire point of
spacetime.



1. **There is no "absolute time" you pathetic pre-1905 relic**  
   Your entire setup assumes some Platonic "correct absolute time of an
orbit" exists that SI-clocks should report. Special and general
relativity demolished that fantasy over a century ago. Proper time (what
an atomic clock actually measures along its worldline) is
path-dependent. The geoid clock and orbital clock follow different
worldlines in curved spacetime; their accumulated proper times *must*
differ. Demanding one "absolute" number is like asking which twin is
older after the twin paradox without specifying the inertial frame or
paths. Delusional.

2. **The SI second is defined locally via proper time, not some cosmic
referee**  
   The SI second is realized by cesium hyperfine transitions in the
*rest frame of the clock* at the geoid (by convention and definition).
It's not a claim to universal simultaneity. Your "facts" correctly show
the *difference* (~19.235 µs per orbit due to gravitational blueshift
dominating velocity redshift), but then you treat this as a paradox
exposing failure. It's the predicted, measured, and corrected feature of
GPS.

3. **You confuse coordinate time with proper time like a freshman who
skimmed the Wikipedia intro**  
   GPS uses a coordinate time (e.g., in the Earth-Centered Inertial
frame) for synchronization, with explicit relativistic corrections
applied to satellite clocks (pre-corrected by ~38 µs/day net). Neither
raw reading is the "absolute" orbit duration; both are valid proper
times. Your question "which one is correct absolute time?" reveals you
don't understand that coordinate time is a useful fiction, not reality's
stopwatch.

4. **Missing the engineering reality that makes this work daily**  
   Billions of GPS receivers function because engineers account for
exactly this. If your "idea" were right, GPS would drift by kilometers
per day. It doesn't. The difference is not a crisis for SI
definitions—it's a triumph of applied relativity.


You assume without evidence that "absolute time of an orbit" is a
coherent concept independent of reference frames or worldlines. You
smuggle in Newtonian absolute time as the unspoken referee. You pretend
SI definitions claim universality rather than a standardized local
realization. Fairy-tale premise: physics owes you a single privileged
clock reading for every event.


Physicists and metrologists have zero incentive to indulge this. They
built working systems (GPS, Galileo, atomic time scales like TAI) that
treat proper time and corrections as routine. Competitors (actual
researchers) would mock this as 101-level misunderstanding. Regulators
and standards bodies (BIPM) define SI precisely to avoid your vague
"absolute" nonsense, not chase it.


At relativistic scales this "problem" is trivial and solved. GPS
satellites experience ~38 µs/day net gain; corrections are applied
continuously. Your numbers are order-of-magnitude correct but weaponized
against understanding instead of illustrating it. Trying to scale this
"gotcha" to cosmology or fundamental physics fails harder—clocks
disagree by design in curved spacetime. No experiment has ever found
your implied absolute time; all confirm frame-dependence.


- The entire framing that different proper times imply a crisis for SI
definitions or "absolute time."  
- Any assumption of Newtonian absolute time lurking in the background.  
- The question "which one is correct absolute time?"—replace with "what
coordinate system and corrections are needed for synchronization?"  
- The naive presentation pretending this is profound rather than
textbook relativity.


Stop. This isn't a deep challenge to time—it's a shallow
misunderstanding of relativity cosplaying as philosophy. Physics moved
on; your idea should too, preferably into the trash.


Now I know why the Mafia got into the garbage business...there is soo
much trash here.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#671115

On 6/8/2026 6:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:


> 1. **There is no "absolute time" you pathetic pre-1905 relic**
>     Your entire setup assumes some Platonic "correct absolute time of an
> orbit" exists that SI-clocks should report. Special and general
> relativity demolished that fantasy over a century ago. 

Just like great works of comerade Lenin demolished
rotten capitalists.

 > Proper time (what> an atomic clock actually measures along its 
worldline) is
> path-dependent. 

Unfortunately, it's only "proper" for some
brainwashed religious maniacs. Serious
people making serious measurements (GPS staff)
-  fuck it. Common sense has been warning
your idiot guru.

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

#671118

Den 08.06.2026 07:41, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/8/2026 6:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> Proper time (what> an atomic clock actually measures along 
>> its worldline) is path-dependent. 
> 
> Unfortunately, it's only "proper" for some
> brainwashed religious maniacs. Serious
> people making serious measurements (GPS staff)
> -  fuck it. Common sense has been warning
> your idiot guru.
> 

Quite.

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

Right?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671120

On 6/8/2026 9:50 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.06.2026 07:41, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/8/2026 6:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Proper time (what> an atomic clock actually measures along its 
>>> worldline) is path-dependent. 
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's only "proper" for some
>> brainwashed religious maniacs. Serious
>> people making serious measurements (GPS staff)
>> -  fuck it. Common sense has been warning
>> your idiot guru.
>>
> 
> Quite.
> 
>   An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>   by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>   in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.

For sure it must be, your primitive
religious idiocy is  simply unusable for
serious measurements.

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


R-I-G-H-T (assuming some value to your
childish "falsification" babbling, of course).
If it was really "proper" as your insane Shit
predicts and insist -  it wouldn't have to be
corrected, poor trash.

By announcing your precious SI your bunch
of idiots  was trying to force clocks to
fulfill those mad prophecies of your mad
guru; no chance for that. It's as if you
were trying to force sharks to eat grass
by defining "a shark" as a grasseater.

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

#671131

Den 08.06.2026 10:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/8/2026 9:50 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>>  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>>  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
>>  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
>>  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
>>  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
>>  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.
>> 
>> Right?

> 
> R-I-G-H-T 

Thanks for yet again confirming that your IQ is < 80.

:-D

> By announcing your precious SI your bunch
> of idiots  was trying to force clocks to
> fulfill those mad prophecies of your mad
> guru; 
Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
of the rate of atomic clocks?

-- 
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

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

#671132

On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.06.2026 10:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/8/2026 9:50 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>>>  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>>>  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
>>>  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
>>>  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
>>>  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
>>>  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>
>>> Right?
> 
>>
>> R-I-G-H-T 
> 
> Thanks for yet again confirming that your IQ is < 80.
> :-D
> 
>> By announcing your precious SI your bunch
>> of idiots  was trying to force clocks to
>> fulfill those mad prophecies of your mad
>> guru; 
> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
> of the rate of atomic clocks?

Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
has forbidden synchronization of clocks
as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
and  your SI idiocy has been invented
to enforce his madness.

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

#671135

On 06/08/2026 10:42 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 08.06.2026 10:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 6/8/2026 9:50 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>>>>  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>>>>  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
>>>>  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
>>>>  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
>>>>  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
>>>>  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>
>>>> Right?
>>
>>>
>>> R-I-G-H-T
>>
>> Thanks for yet again confirming that your IQ is < 80.
>> :-D
>>
>>> By announcing your precious SI your bunch
>>> of idiots  was trying to force clocks to
>>> fulfill those mad prophecies of your mad
>>> guru;
>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>> of the rate of atomic clocks?
>
> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
> to enforce his madness.
>

That's why there are all the other systems of units.

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

#671137

On 6/9/2026 1:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/08/2026 10:42 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 08.06.2026 10:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 6/8/2026 9:50 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down
>>>>>  by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) to make it stay
>>>>>  in sync with an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>  The fact that the adjusted clock does stay in sync
>>>>>  with SI-clocks on the ground falsifies GR's prediction
>>>>>  that the proper time of one orbit measured by an SI-clock
>>>>>  in GPS orbit is (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than the duration
>>>>>  of one GPS orbit measured by an SI-clock on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> R-I-G-H-T
>>>
>>> Thanks for yet again confirming that your IQ is < 80.
>>> :-D
>>>
>>>> By announcing your precious SI your bunch
>>>> of idiots  was trying to force clocks to
>>>> fulfill those mad prophecies of your mad
>>>> guru;
>>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>>> of the rate of atomic clocks?
>>
>> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
>> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
>> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
>> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
>> to enforce his madness.
>>
> 
> That's why there are all the other systems of units.

To enforce some madness of some mumbling
idiot? Not quite. But it's true that the
SI has strongly degenerated.

Nobody cares. Even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as Paul is -
admits that those clocks related
to "synchronisation of the rate of
atomic clocks" are adjusted down compared
to your ideological absurd. Common
sense has been warning the idiot.



> 
> 

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

#671139

Den 09.06.2026 07:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> Even such a disgusting
> piece of lying shit as Paul is -
> admits that those clocks related
> to "synchronisation of the rate of
> atomic clocks" are adjusted down compared
> to your ideological absurd.

Are you referring to the fact that I have
told you that an atomic clock in GPS orbit must be
adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10)
to be in sync with atomic clocks on the ground?

Any person with IQ > 80 will understand that
if the clock had not been adjusted down by
the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) then its rate would
be (1 + 4.4647e-10) faster, which means that it
would have measured the duration of one orbit
of a GPS satellite to be longer by the factor
(1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to the duration of
the orbit measured by a clock on the ground.
As predicted by GR.

You will not understand this, though.
You think it falsifies GR.
Right? :-D

-- 
Paul, still having fun

https://paulba.no/

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

#671141

On 6/9/2026 10:59 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.06.2026 07:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>> Even such a disgusting
>> piece of lying shit as Paul is -
>> admits that those clocks related
>> to "synchronisation of the rate of
>> atomic clocks" are adjusted down compared
>> to your ideological absurd.
> 
> Are you referring to the fact that I have
> told you that an atomic clock in GPS orbit must be
> adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> to be in sync with atomic clocks on the ground?

Yes.

> 
> Any person with IQ > 80 will understand that
> if the clock had not been adjusted down by
> the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) then its rate would
> be (1 + 4.4647e-10) faster, which means that it
> would have measured the duration of one orbit
> of a GPS satellite to be longer by the factor
> (1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to the duration of
> the orbit measured by a clock on the ground.
> As predicted by GR.

And any person with IQ > 60 will understand that
there is a big, big, big  difference between
"it would have if" and "it has".

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

#671153

Den 09.06.2026 11:06, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/9/2026 10:59 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.06.2026 07:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>
>>> Even such a disgusting
>>> piece of lying shit as Paul is -
>>> admits that those clocks related
>>> to "synchronisation of the rate of
>>> atomic clocks" are adjusted down compared
>>> to your ideological absurd.
>>
>> Are you referring to the fact that I have
>> told you that an atomic clock in GPS orbit must be
>> adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>> to be in sync with atomic clocks on the ground?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>
>> Any person with IQ > 80 will understand that
>> if the clock had not been adjusted down by
>> the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) then its rate would
>> be (1 + 4.4647e-10) faster, which means that it
>> would have measured the duration of one orbit
>> of a GPS satellite to be longer by the factor
>> (1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to the duration of
>> the orbit measured by a clock on the ground.
>> As predicted by GR.
> 
> And any person with IQ > 60 will understand that
> there is a big, big, big  difference between
> "it would have if" and "it has".

So you think that no unadjusted clock has been flown in GPS orbit,
and with your sharp sense of logic you think that if it had, the 
unadjusted clock would still run at the same rate as the adjusted
clock and stay in sync with clocks on the ground.

You are wrong.
An unadjusted clock has been flown in GPS orbit.

Read this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

This was the first test of a GPS clock in orbit.
The engineers were only interested in getting the GPS to work.
They weren't sure if Einstein was right, so they first tried
to run the clock unadjusted. The clock was then found to run
fast by the factor (1 + 4.425e-10) compared to clocks on the ground.
They had to switch on the adjustment to make the GPS work.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671155

On 6/9/2026 8:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.06.2026 11:06, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/9/2026 10:59 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 09.06.2026 07:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>
>>>> Even such a disgusting
>>>> piece of lying shit as Paul is -
>>>> admits that those clocks related
>>>> to "synchronisation of the rate of
>>>> atomic clocks" are adjusted down compared
>>>> to your ideological absurd.
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the fact that I have
>>> told you that an atomic clock in GPS orbit must be
>>> adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>> to be in sync with atomic clocks on the ground?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> Any person with IQ > 80 will understand that
>>> if the clock had not been adjusted down by
>>> the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) then its rate would
>>> be (1 + 4.4647e-10) faster, which means that it
>>> would have measured the duration of one orbit
>>> of a GPS satellite to be longer by the factor
>>> (1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to the duration of
>>> the orbit measured by a clock on the ground.
>>> As predicted by GR.
>>
>> And any person with IQ > 60 will understand that
>> there is a big, big, big  difference between
>> "it would have if" and "it has".
> 
> So you think that no unadjusted clock has been flown in GPS orbit,
> and with your sharp sense of logic you think that if it had, the 
> unadjusted clock would still run at the same rate as the adjusted
> clock and stay in sync with clocks on the ground.
> 
> You are wrong.
> An unadjusted clock has been flown in GPS orbit.

And for some hours of initial disorder
the prophecies of your idiot guru matched
the reality.  Some hours compared to
almost 50 years when they didn't.
Not a very impressive success, sorry,
trash.

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

#671158

Den 09.06.2026 20:55, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/9/2026 8:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> 
>> Read this:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>> 
>> This was the first test of a GPS clock in orbit.
>> The engineers were only interested in getting the GPS to work.
>> They weren't sure if Einstein was right, so they first tried
>> to run the clock unadjusted. The clock was then found to run
>> fast by the factor (1 + 4.425e-10) compared to clocks on the ground.
>> They had to switch on the adjustment to make the GPS work.

> 
> And for some hours of initial disorder
> the prophecies of your idiot guru matched
> the reality.  Some hours compared to
> almost 50 years when they didn't.
> Not a very impressive success, sorry,
> trash.
> 

Quite.
The unadjusted clock ran as predicted by GR for 6.5 days.
But then they adjusted the rate of the clock down, so
now is GR falsified.

Well done Maciej!

-- 
Paul, still laughing!

https://paulba.no/

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

#671159

On 6/9/2026 9:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.06.2026 20:55, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/9/2026 8:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Read this:
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>>>
>>> This was the first test of a GPS clock in orbit.
>>> The engineers were only interested in getting the GPS to work.
>>> They weren't sure if Einstein was right, so they first tried
>>> to run the clock unadjusted. The clock was then found to run
>>> fast by the factor (1 + 4.425e-10) compared to clocks on the ground.
>>> They had to switch on the adjustment to make the GPS work.
> 
>>
>> And for some hours of initial disorder
>> the prophecies of your idiot guru matched
>> the reality.  Some hours compared to
>> almost 50 years when they didn't.
>> Not a very impressive success, sorry,
>> trash.
>>
> 
> Quite.
> The unadjusted clock ran as predicted by GR for 6.5 days.
> But then they adjusted the rate of the clock down, so
> now is GR falsified.
> 
> Well done Maciej!

Much better done than - for 50 years
clocks have been indicating t'=t, as
common sense predicted, but it doesn't
count because our idiot guru has said
they shouldn't, they are improper and
they are violating some delusional
"Laws of Nature" the idiot has invented.


As for "falsification" - this
primitive nonsense may be good enough
for you primitive halfbrain, but thinkers
more advanced than poor idiot Popper
(Poincare, Kuhn) knew better.


> 

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

#671138

Den 08.06.2026 19:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>> of the rate of atomic clocks?

> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
> to enforce his madness.
> 

Why do you pretend not to know?

Even you must know that the SI-definition of second
is inbuilt in an atomic clock.

Or do you think that all atomic clocks must be brought
to the museum at Greenwich to be calibrated to the old
definition of second ? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671140

On 6/9/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.06.2026 19:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>>> of the rate of atomic clocks?
> 
>> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
>> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
>> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
>> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
>> to enforce his madness.
>>
> 
> Why do you pretend not to know?
> 
> Even you must know that the SI-definition of second
> is inbuilt in an atomic clock.

Fortunately, even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
non stop, so sometimes you admit that
they're [sometimes] adjusted down compared
to your religious absurd.

> 
> Or do you think that all atomic clocks must be brought
> to the museum at Greenwich to be calibrated to the old
> definition of second ? :-D

Quoting,
"An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down[...]
to make it stay  in sync."
Oh yes, poor trash, if talking about "the synchronisation
of the rate of atomic clocks" - it must be. Greenwich
museum  is  not necessary for that, however.



> 

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

#671154

Den 09.06.2026 11:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 6/9/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 08.06.2026 19:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>>>> of the rate of atomic clocks?
>>
>>> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
>>> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
>>> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
>>> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
>>> to enforce his madness.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you pretend not to know?
>>
>> Even you must know that the SI-definition of second
>> is inbuilt in an atomic clock.
> 
> Fortunately, even such a disgusting
> piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
> non stop, so sometimes you admit that
> they're [sometimes] adjusted down compared
> to your religious absurd.

Even you must understand that the adjusted atomic clock
must have the SI-definition inbuilt to make the adjusted 'second'
be exactly (1 + 4.4647e-10) second.

Or don't you understand it?

> 
>>
>> Or do you think that all atomic clocks must be brought
>> to the museum at Greenwich to be calibrated to the old
>> definition of second ? :-D
> 
> Quoting,
> "An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down[...]
> to make it stay  in sync."
> Oh yes, poor trash, if talking about "the synchronisation
> of the rate of atomic clocks" - it must be. Greenwich
> museum  is  not necessary for that, however.

Does that mean that you know that atomic clocks has
the SI-definition inbuilt so that it doesn't have to
be brought to Greenwich to be adjusted to the old definition?

Of course you know that the SI-definition is inbuilt in
atomic clocks.

So why do you pretend to be an idiot who insist that
"SI idiocy has been invented to enforce Einsteins madness",
and insist that the old definition of second is used in
atomic clocks?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671157

On 6/9/2026 8:56 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.06.2026 11:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 6/9/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 08.06.2026 19:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 6/8/2026 7:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which definition of second is used in the synchronisation
>>>>> of the rate of atomic clocks?
>>>
>>>> Of course it's not yours. Your idiot guru
>>>> has forbidden synchronization of clocks
>>>> as it was violating his moronic symmetry -
>>>> and  your SI idiocy has been invented
>>>> to enforce his madness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you pretend not to know?
>>>
>>> Even you must know that the SI-definition of second
>>> is inbuilt in an atomic clock.
>>
>> Fortunately, even such a disgusting
>> piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
>> non stop, so sometimes you admit that
>> they're [sometimes] adjusted down compared
>> to your religious absurd.
> 
> Even you must understand that the adjusted atomic clock
> must have the SI-definition inbuilt to make the adjusted 'second'

Yeah, poor trash, any unadjusted atomic clock is
for sure adjusted to your SI idiocy, no doubt.

It's indeed amazing what The Shit of Einstein
is making with the brains of its unfortunate
victims.



>> Quoting,
>> "An SI-clock in GPS orbit must be adjusted down[...]
>> to make it stay  in sync."
>> Oh yes, poor trash, if talking about "the synchronisation
>> of the rate of atomic clocks" - it must be. Greenwich
>> museum  is  not necessary for that, however.
> 
> Does that mean that you know that atomic clocks has
> the SI-definition inbuilt

Fortunately, even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
non stop, so sometimes you admit that
they're [sometimes] adjusted down compared
to your religious absurd.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web