Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:56 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:47 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:48 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:52 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 06:22 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v3fYGwQ7FmGX7Cu_zY7cpSJycf4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674085 |
Maciej, there are several different errors here, so let's separate them.
1. "You agreed that when clocks desynchronize we compensate them is a
Galilean rule."
No. What I agreed to was the actual consequence of Galilean time:
t' = t
so two ideal, initially synchronized Galilean clocks do not spontaneously
develop different rates merely because they have different velocities.
Therefore, IF they nevertheless disagree, at least one is not correctly
realizing that common Galilean time.
That does NOT imply the additional proposition
therefore engineers MUST compensate them.
That is a decision about what you want your engineered system to do.
More importantly, even if I generously CALL your engineering rule
"Galilean", it still tells you only:
clocks disagree -> do something.
It tells you neither:
which clock,
by how much,
at what rate,
nor as a function of what physical variables.
For GPS, relativity supplies precisely the missing quantitative content:
gravitational contribution: about +45 us/day
kinematic contribution: about -7 us/day
----------------
net: about +38 us/day.
Your "Galilean rule" predicts none of these numbers.
2. "Relativity prohibits compensating clocks."
This is simply false.
There is no postulate of SR or GR saying:
Thou shalt never adjust a clock.
Relativity predicts what proper time ideal clocks accumulate along
specified worldlines.
An engineer is perfectly free to construct a clock whose displayed time
is deliberately related to some chosen coordinate/system time.
Indeed, that is exactly what GPS engineering does.
A standard NIST technical description is exceptionally explicit:
"To compensate for the relativistic effects ... atomic clocks in GPS
satellites are given a fixed fractional frequency offset
of -4.4645 x 10^-10."
Notice the words:
RELATIVISTIC effects
FREQUENCY offset
TO COMPENSATE
So your claim that relativity somehow forbids compensation isn't merely
a philosophical disagreement with me. It contradicts the actual
technical implementation being described.
3. "Time dilation, not any rate difference."
This has now become surreal, because the technical literature literally
calls it a RATE difference.
For the GPS orbit, the NIST material gives:
-7 us/day velocity contribution
+45 us/day gravitational contribution
---------------------------------------
+38 us/day net
and then explicitly describes the net effect as an approximately
38 us/day RATE difference and gives the corresponding fractional
frequency offset. :chatgpt-content-reference{index="1"}
Mathematically this is elementary.
If the difference accumulates approximately linearly:
Delta T = 38 us after 1 day,
then
d(Delta T)/dt ~= 38 us/day
~= 4.4 x 10^-10.
That is a relative rate difference.
"Time dilation" and "rate difference" are not definitions of the same
concept.
But a constant relativistic rate difference PRODUCES an accumulated
difference in clock indications.
You are trying to separate a slope from the amount accumulated by that
slope.
4. "The correction is forbidden by your Holiest Postulate and your
wannabe standard of second."
No.
The SI definition tells us how the unit second is realized locally.
It does NOT say:
Every ideal clock everywhere in every gravitational potential
and on every worldline must accumulate identical elapsed time
between arbitrary remote events.
That proposition is essentially what Galilean absolute time would give
you.
It is specifically NOT what relativity says.
Two ideal atomic clocks can both realize the SI second locally and still
accumulate different proper times along different worldlines.
This has been measured directly with atomic clocks, including clocks at
different elevations. NIST describes such experiments and explicitly
reports the differing ticking rates predicted by gravitational time
dilation. :chatgpt-content-reference{index="2"}
So there is no contradiction whatsoever between:
locally identical atomic frequency standards
and
different accumulated proper times.
5. Your light-deflection objection has now changed.
Originally you called this a lie:
Newtonian corpuscular calculation: ~0.87 arcsec.
Now you say the corpuscular theory of light was abandoned in the
19th century.
Those are entirely different claims.
Yes, corpuscular theories of light lost favor historically.
That doesn't magically alter the result of the calculation.
Ralph/Henry specifically invoked a NEWTONIAN gravitational model for the
propagation of signals, which is why testing such a model against
gravitational light deflection is directly relevant.
If Ralph has some OTHER Newtonian signal-propagation law, excellent.
Write it down and calculate its solar deflection.
That was precisely my challenge to him.
6. "According to relativity paths of light are straight/geodesic."
Again:
geodesic != Euclidean straight spatial line.
A geodesic is the appropriate "straightest possible" curve with respect
to the spacetime connection.
In curved spacetime a null geodesic can have a spatial projection which
is curved in a chosen spatial coordinate representation.
There is no contradiction between:
light follows a spacetime geodesic
and
an observer measures gravitational deflection of the ray.
The latter is one of the consequences of the former.
7. "It assumes that the ray follows a straight non-Euclidean line in a
non-Euclidean space. But its fanatics assume it follows a curved line
in Euclidean space."
No.
You're confusing a geometrical object with one possible representation
of that object.
GR describes a null worldline in four-dimensional spacetime.
You may then describe its spatial trajectory using coordinates.
The fact that a coordinate representation can depict that trajectory
as spatially curved does not mean the theory has secretly replaced its
spacetime geometry with Euclidean physics.
It's rather like looking at a great-circle route on a flat map and
announcing:
"Aha! The line is curved on my map, therefore the navigator secretly
assumed the Earth was flat."
You have confused the geometry with its representation.
8. Finally, this sentence of yours is especially revealing:
Galilean physics "says nothing" about the amount.
Exactly.
Let's preserve that admission.
Your theory gives you:
clocks disagree -> compensate somehow.
Relativity gives:
+45 us/day
-7 us/day
-----------
+38 us/day
and therefore the corresponding fractional frequency offset.
GPS engineering actually applies a fixed fractional frequency offset
of about
-4.4645 x 10^-10
for the principal secular relativistic effect.
So your proposed explanatory chain is:
Galileo:
"Something should be adjusted."
Amount: unknown.
Relativity:
predicts the physical rate difference.
Amount: ~4.46 x 10^-10.
GPS:
applies frequency offset.
Amount: ~-4.46 x 10^-10.
Maciej:
"Obviously Galilean."
At this point "Galilean" no longer seems to denote a physical theory.
It means "anything engineers do that Maciej approves of."
And that's why you still cannot perform the one calculation I've been
asking you for:
Starting from your Galilean t'=t,
derive the GPS frequency offset
-4.4645 x 10^-10.
Relativity can.
GPS uses it.
Your "Galilean correction rule" cannot even tell us how far to turn
the knob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dabc43781b12a7$84040$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674087 |
On 10/2/2026 3:45 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, there are several different errors here, so let's separate them. > > 1. "You agreed that when clocks desynchronize we compensate them is a > Galilean rule." > > No. What I agreed to was the actual consequence of Galilean time: > > t' = t > > so two ideal, initially synchronized Galilean clocks do not spontaneously > develop different rates merely because they have different velocities. > > Therefore, IF they nevertheless disagree, at least one is not correctly > realizing that common Galilean time. > > That does NOT imply the additional proposition > > therefore engineers MUST compensate them. It does. Of course, engineers may listen or not. For instance - those mad commands of your mad Shit are totally ignored. Galilean rules are better. Na > clocks disagree -> do something. > > It tells you neither: > > which clock, > by how much, > at what rate, > nor as a function of what physical variables. > > For GPS, relativity supplies precisely the missing quantitative content: For GPS, The Shit is asserting that perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks and it's proper and correct to leave them desynchronizing (and having those idiotic indication differences prophesieded by the idiot, of course). > 2. "Relativity prohibits compensating clocks." > > This is simply false. > > There is no postulate of SR or GR saying: > > Thou shalt never adjust a clock. No, sure. The rule is the same as in Galilean physics - you should adjust a clock when it doesn't fit the theory. AND - you shouldn't adjust it when it does fit the theory. If The Shit didn't forbid to compensate clocks whenever they desynchronize - how could it expect them to have different indications, prophesied by the idiot? > A standard NIST technical description is exceptionally explicit: > > "To compensate for the relativistic effects ... atomic clocks in GPS > satellites are given a fixed fractional frequency offset > of -4.4645 x 10^-10." > > Notice the words: > > RELATIVISTIC effects I've already said, since they know little of your moronic liturgy - it's rather a mistake than a lie. > 3. "Time dilation, not any rate difference." > > This has now become surreal, because the technical literature literally > calls it a RATE difference. The idiot has DEFINED it as a difference in clock indications, however. > > But a constant relativistic rate difference PRODUCES an accumulated > difference in clock indications. A delusion. Anyone can check GPS. > 4. "The correction is forbidden by your Holiest Postulate and your > wannabe standard of second." > > No. Yes. > 5. Your light-deflection objection has now changed. > > Originally you called this a lie: > > Newtonian corpuscular calculation: ~0.87 arcsec. No. I've called a like something else. > Yes, corpuscular theories of light lost favor historically. > > That doesn't magically alter the result of the calculation. But that makes your lie a lie. "Forgetting" such details for ideological reasons is definitely lying. > 6. "According to relativity paths of light are straight/geodesic." > > Again: > > geodesic != Euclidean straight spatial line. Nobody says it does. But it = non-Euclidean straight spatial line. > There is no contradiction between: > > light follows a spacetime geodesic > > and > > an observer measures gravitational deflection of the ray. But that is not the only thing your Shit is claiming about light. And you've admitted yourself - you're getting your value assuming Euclidean 3 space instead the nonsenses of the idiot. > 7. "It assumes that the ray follows a straight non-Euclidean line in a > non-Euclidean space. But its fanatics assume it follows a curved line > in Euclidean space." > > No. Yes. > GR describes a null worldline in four-dimensional spacetime. It is not the only thing it describes. > 8. Finally, this sentence of yours is especially revealing: > > Galilean physics "says nothing" about the amount. > > Exactly. > > Let's preserve that admission. > > Your theory gives you: > > clocks disagree -> compensate somehow. > > Relativity gives: > > +45 us/day > -7 us/day > ----------- > +38 us/day And it says explicitely that it's going to be the difference in clock indications. Of course, no such thing happens. Common sense has been warning the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7GLUh0q8gQxYcoaXpQY4LG3vZD4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674091 |
Maciej, this post finally makes your mistake completely explicit.
You write:
"If The Shit didn't forbid to compensate
clocks whenever they desynchronize -
how could it expect them to have different
indications?"
Because a PHYSICAL PREDICTION and an ENGINEERING INTERVENTION are two
different things.
This really is the entire confusion.
Suppose a theory predicts that two freely running clocks will accumulate
a difference of 38 us/day.
There are then two perfectly different experiments:
A) Let them run freely.
-> the predicted difference accumulates.
B) Deliberately alter one clock's frequency to cancel the effect.
-> the difference does not accumulate.
B does not refute A.
It uses the prediction in A to prevent its consequence.
Your argument is literally:
"If a doctor predicts my fever will reach 39 C,
he must forbid me to take an antipyretic,
otherwise how could he expect 39 C?"
Or, returning to our restaurant:
Waiter:
Your bill is 38 euros.
Maciej:
I'll pay 38 euros.
Waiter:
Balance zero.
Maciej:
AHA! Your prediction was false!
Waiter:
No. You paid the predicted amount.
Maciej:
But if you REALLY predicted a 38-euro debt,
you should have FORBIDDEN me to pay it!
Otherwise how could you expect my debt
to be 38 euros?
That is EXACTLY the logic of your paragraph.
Now to the other points.
You say:
"The idiot has DEFINED [time dilation]
as a difference in clock indications."
Even granting that wording for the sake of argument, you still haven't
escaped the arithmetic.
If the indication difference grows by
38 us every day,
then the rate of growth of that difference is
38 us/day.
That is why the technical literature discusses clock RATES and
FREQUENCY shifts, not merely two mysterious displays which suddenly
differ by 38 us at midnight.
NIST explicitly describes the GPS result as clocks running 38 us/day
faster and says the system must correct/account for the relativistic
effects.
You answer:
"A delusion. Anyone can check GPS."
Yes!
And what does one check TODAY?
A system in which the predicted effect is ACCOUNTED FOR.
We're back in the restaurant:
Maciej pays the 38-euro bill,
checks his balance,
finds zero,
and triumphantly announces that
there never was a 38-euro bill.
You keep presenting successful compensation as evidence that the thing
being compensated does not exist.
That is subtraction followed by amnesia.
Then:
"you should adjust a clock when it
doesn't fit the theory. AND - you shouldn't
adjust it when it does fit the theory."
No.
A theory describes/predicts physical behavior.
An engineer specifies desired system behavior.
Those are not the same criterion.
A perfectly functioning physical clock can be deliberately frequency
offset because the engineered system requires its output to track a
chosen system time.
Your imaginary commandment
PERFECT CLOCK -> THOU SHALT NOT ALTER ITS FREQUENCY
is neither a postulate of relativity nor a consequence of the SI second.
You invented it.
And your claim that NIST merely "doesn't know the liturgy" is becoming
rather expensive epistemically.
You now have specialists in precision timekeeping saying that GPS
requires accounting for relativistic effects. NIST gives the same
+45, -7, +38 us/day figures.
Your rebuttal is:
They're mistaken about their own engineering,
because Maciej knows what "relativistic" REALLY means.
That's not a calculation.
Now light.
You say the Newtonian corpuscular calculation isn't relevant because
corpuscular optics was abandoned.
But Henry proposed a Newtonian model in which gravity changes the
propagation of the signal.
My challenge was therefore deliberately:
Fine. Specify that model and calculate another gravitational
propagation effect with it.
Historically, Soldner's Newtonian calculation using Newtonian gravity
and particle-like light gives about 0.9 arcsec, whereas GR gives twice
that value.
If Henry's model is different, excellent.
Then he should calculate its prediction.
That's the entire point of the challenge.
Finally, your geometry has become confused again:
"geodesic = non-Euclidean straight spatial line."
No.
In GR the fundamental statement about a freely propagating light ray is
that its WORLDLINE is a null geodesic of FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
Not:
"a non-Euclidean straight spatial line."
You have silently replaced spacetime with space.
And no, I never "admitted" that GR obtains 1.75 arcsec by abandoning
its geometry and assuming Euclidean 3-space.
I said exactly the opposite:
spacetime geodesic
does not mean
Euclidean spatial straight line.
Einstein Online states the point rather nicely: light follows
spacetime geodesics, and precisely for that reason light passing a
massive body is deflected.
So after all of this, we're still at the same wonderfully simple
problem.
Your "Galilean rule" says:
If clocks disagree, compensate them.
Fine.
HOW MUCH?
You have already answered:
Galilean physics says nothing.
The other calculation says:
+45
-7
---
+38 us/day.
And GPS engineering accounts for that effect.
You can call the calculation "The Shit", NIST incompetent, Einstein an
idiot, and the compensation "Galilean".
But you still cannot get the number 38 from t'=t.
That's the rather stubborn problem with numbers:
they remain unmoved by insults.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dabd6a84be547d$82611$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674087 |
> Maciej, there are several different errors here, so let's separate them. > > 1. "You agreed that when clocks desynchronize we compensate them is a Galilean rule." > > No. What I agreed to was the actual consequence of Galilean time: > > t' = t > > so two ideal, initially synchronized Galilean clocks do not spontaneously > develop different rates merely because they have different velocities. > > Therefore, IF they nevertheless disagree, at least one is not correctly > realizing that common Galilean time. > > That does NOT imply the additional proposition > > therefore engineers MUST compensate them. It does. Of course, engineers may listen or not. For instance - those mad commands of your mad Shit are totally ignored. Galilean rules are better. > clocks disagree -> do something. > > It tells you neither: > > which clock, > by how much, > at what rate, > nor as a function of what physical variables. > > For GPS, relativity supplies precisely the missing quantitative content: For GPS, The Shit is asserting that perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks and it's proper and correct to leave them desynchronizing (and having those idiotic indication differences prophesieded by the idiot, of course). > 2. "Relativity prohibits compensating clocks." > > This is simply false. > > There is no postulate of SR or GR saying: > > Thou shalt never adjust a clock. No, sure. The rule is the same as in Galilean physics - you should adjust a clock when it doesn't fit the theory. AND - you shouldn't adjust it when it does fit the theory. If The Shit didn't forbid to compensate clocks whenever they desynchronize - how could it expect them to have different indications, prophesied by the idiot? > A standard NIST technical description is exceptionally explicit: > > "To compensate for the relativistic effects ... atomic clocks in GPS > satellites are given a fixed fractional frequency offset > of -4.4645 x 10^-10." > > Notice the words: > > RELATIVISTIC effects I've already said, since they know little of your moronic liturgy - it's rather a mistake than a lie. > 3. "Time dilation, not any rate difference." > > This has now become surreal, because the technical literature literally > calls it a RATE difference. The idiot has DEFINED it as a difference in clock indications, however. > > But a constant relativistic rate difference PRODUCES an accumulated > difference in clock indications. A delusion. Anyone can check GPS. > 4. "The correction is forbidden by your Holiest Postulate and your > wannabe standard of second." > > No. Yes. > 5. Your light-deflection objection has now changed. > > Originally you called this a lie: > > Newtonian corpuscular calculation: ~0.87 arcsec. No. I've called a like something else. > Yes, corpuscular theories of light lost favor historically. > > That doesn't magically alter the result of the calculation. But that makes your lie a lie. "Forgetting" such details for ideological reasons is definitely lying. > 6. "According to relativity paths of light are straight/geodesic." > > Again: > > geodesic != Euclidean straight spatial line. Nobody says it does. But it = non-Euclidean straight spatial line. > There is no contradiction between: > > light follows a spacetime geodesic > > and > > an observer measures gravitational deflection of the ray. But that is not the only thing your Shit is claiming about light. And you've admitted yourself - you're getting your value assuming Euclidean 3 space instead the nonsenses of the idiot. > 7. "It assumes that the ray follows a straight non-Euclidean line in a > non-Euclidean space. But its fanatics assume it follows a curved line > in Euclidean space." > > No. Yes. > GR describes a null worldline in four-dimensional spacetime. It is not the only thing it describes. > 8. Finally, this sentence of yours is especially revealing: > > Galilean physics "says nothing" about the amount. > > Exactly. > > Let's preserve that admission. > > Your theory gives you: > > clocks disagree -> compensate somehow. > > Relativity gives: > > +45 us/day > -7 us/day > ----------- > +38 us/day And it says explicitely that it's going to be the difference in clock indications. Of course, no such thing happens. Common sense has been warning the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uOPp_BpuHqgdOAKoL8CJwp6K16o@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674093 |
You're now repeating falsehoods.
1. You claim I admitted:
"when clocks desynchronize, compensate them"
is a Galilean law.
False.
I agreed that under Galilean t'=t, two perfect initially synchronized
clocks cannot physically acquire different rates. If they disagree,
at least one is not realizing that common time correctly.
"Therefore compensate it" is your engineering prescription, not a
Galilean law.
2. You claim relativity says a predicted clock difference MUST be left
uncorrected.
False.
You invented this rule:
if physics predicts an effect,
engineers are forbidden to compensate it.
No such principle exists. Predicting an effect and deliberately
cancelling it are perfectly compatible.
3. You claim:
time difference != rate difference
as if this saved you.
It doesn't.
If a difference accumulates by 38 us every day, its rate of accumulation
is 38 us/day.
This is not relativity. It is arithmetic.
4. You say "anyone can check GPS" and find no accumulating 38 us/day.
Yes: AFTER the system has been designed to compensate the predicted
effect.
You are using successful compensation as evidence that the compensated
effect does not exist.
That's your central logical error.
5. You claim I "admitted" the light-deflection calculation assumes a
straight line in Euclidean 3-space.
False.
I said exactly the opposite:
a null geodesic in curved spacetime
!=
a straight line in Euclidean 3-space.
You deleted "!=" and called the remainder my admission.
6. You now claim:
spacetime geodesic
=
"non-Euclidean straight spatial line".
False again.
A null geodesic is a curve in four-dimensional spacetime. You cannot
turn "spacetime" into "space" by repeatedly dropping the word "time".
7. Finally, your alleged Galilean explanation still cannot answer the
only quantitative question that matters:
Why 38 us/day?
You have explicitly admitted that Galilean physics "says nothing" about
the amount.
So your position is now:
The theory that doesn't calculate 38 explains the correction.
The theory that does calculate 38 has nothing to do with it.
That's not physics.
That's taking the answer from one calculation, sticking a "GALILEAN"
label on it, and then accusing everyone else of lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dabedfb52882af$84041$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674094 |
On 10/2/2026 4:45 PM, Python wrote: > You're now repeating falsehoods. You're now repeating falsehoods. > > 1. You claim I admitted: > > "when clocks desynchronize, compensate them" > is a Galilean law. > > False. True. > > I agreed that under Galilean t'=t, two perfect initially synchronized > clocks cannot physically acquire different rates. If they disagree, > at least one is not realizing that common time correctly. > > "Therefore compensate it" is your engineering prescription, not a > Galilean law. Wrong. It is a galilean law. Engineers may obey or not. > 2. You claim relativity says a predicted clock difference MUST be left > uncorrected. > > False. True. > > You invented this rule: No, poor piece of shit. Answer - if The Shit allowed to compensate clocks whenever they desynchronize - how could it predict they're going to have indications fitting those mad prophecies of the idiot? > 4. You say "anyone can check GPS" and find no accumulating 38 us/day. > > Yes: AFTER Explaining why your idiocies don't fit the reality is not making them fitting the reality, sorry, poor piece of shit. > 5. You claim I "admitted" the light-deflection calculation assumes a > straight line in Euclidean 3-space. > > False. > > I said exactly the opposite: > > a null geodesic in curved spacetime > != > a straight line in Euclidean 3-space. You're too dumb to notice that it's exactly what I'm saying: you're ADMITTING that you're getting curved light because of applying Euclidean 3-space. > 6. You now claim: > > spacetime geodesic > = > "non-Euclidean straight spatial line". > > False again. Aren't geodesics and straight lines the same in non Euclidean geometries? Which of them is mentioned in Lobachevsky's axiom then, poor piece of lying shit? > 7. Finally, your alleged Galilean explanation still cannot answer the > only quantitative question that matters: > > Why 38 us/day? > > You have explicitly admitted that Galilean physics "says nothing" about > the amount. Sure. > So your position is now: > > The theory that doesn't calculate 38 explains the correction. Much better than The Shit of Einstein, which is forbidding the correction explicitly and insisting on non-existing differences in clock indications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nBzxIDBNn2HY-A8-ZofRbRtuTgU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674096 |
Maciej, your answer now reduces to repeating "true", "false" and "Galilean
law" without ever producing the alleged law.
1. Show us the "Galilean law".
You claim Galilean physics contains:
whenever clocks desynchronize,
they must be compensated.
Fine. Write the equation, theorem, or principle of Galilean mechanics
from which this follows.
Because
t' = t
says what Galilean coordinate time does.
It does not say:
ENGINEERS SHALL ADJUST CLOCKS.
Calling the latter a "Galilean law" repeatedly doesn't put it into
Galilean mechanics.
2. Your alleged relativistic prohibition is even simpler.
You ask:
"If [relativity] allowed to compensate clocks whenever
they desynchronize, how could it predict they're going
to have [different] indications?"
Because the prediction concerns what the specified clocks do WITHOUT
that compensating intervention.
This is embarrassingly elementary.
"This object will fall 5 metres."
does not imply:
"Physics FORBIDS you from catching it."
If you catch it, you haven't refuted the prediction for free fall.
You've changed the experiment.
Your supposed "explicit prohibition" exists only in your posts.
3. Then comes perhaps your best logical inversion:
explaining why the uncompensated effect isn't visible
"doesn't make it fit reality."
Maciej, when a quantitatively predicted effect is deliberately
compensated by the quantitatively corresponding amount, the resulting
absence of accumulated error is precisely what one expects.
Your argument remains:
predicted: +38
compensation: -38
----
observed: 0
therefore:
"+38 was wrong."
That's subtraction followed by amnesia.
4. Your geometry argument is now spectacular.
I say:
spacetime geodesic != straight line in Euclidean 3-space.
You answer:
"Exactly! You admit you're getting curved light
because of applying Euclidean 3-space."
No.
The symbol
!=
means "is not equal to".
It does not mean "is calculated by assuming".
You have now managed to misread an inequality sign.
5. "Aren't geodesics and straight lines the same in non-Euclidean
geometries?"
You are again deleting the crucial word:
SPACETIME.
A light ray in GR follows a null geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime.
It is not thereby a "straight spatial line" in some three-dimensional
non-Euclidean space.
Invoking Lobachevsky does not turn a 4D null spacetime geodesic into
a 3D spatial straight line.
6. And finally you concede:
Galilean physics says nothing about why the correction is 38 us/day.
Excellent.
So we have reached the magnificent explanatory power of your
"Galilean law":
Should we compensate?
Maciej: YES!
By how much?
Maciej: Galileo says nothing.
Why 38?
Maciej: Galileo says nothing.
What determines the amount?
Maciej: Galileo says nothing.
But when somebody else calculates 38 and engineers compensate 38:
OBVIOUSLY GALILEAN!
At this point your "Galilean theory" is not predicting the correction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dac0074c544bea$82612$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674097 |
On 10/2/2026 5:14 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, your answer now reduces to repeating "true", "false" and > "Galilean law" without ever producing the alleged law. Answer me one simple question, trash, ok? If physics theories alllowed any action on measurement devices - how could they predict any result? >You ask: > > "If [relativity] allowed to compensate clocks whenever > they desynchronize, how could it predict they're going > to have [different] indications?" >Because the prediction concerns what the specified clocks do WITHOUT >that compensating intervention. So, what is this alleged Shit's specification of clocks? Where is it? The idiot didn't even know Cs clocks will exist - but he specified them? What an idiotic lie. How about galilean relativity? Does it also specify clocks keeping t'=t?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0Yg3i2_aKQgLgPGM4q7KHgCv5k@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674098 |
Yes, Maciej. One simple answer.
A physical theory predicts the result for a SPECIFIED physical setup.
If you change the setup, you may change the result.
This is not difficult.
Drop a stone in vacuum:
theory predicts its trajectory.
Attach the stone to a rocket:
different trajectory.
Does physics therefore "allow any result"?
No. You changed the physical system.
Likewise:
freely running clock
and
clock whose oscillator is deliberately frequency-adjusted
are different physical setups.
Your argument amounts to saying that mechanics cannot predict free fall
because somebody is "allowed" to catch the falling object.
Now this:
"Einstein didn't know Cs clocks will exist -
but he specified them?"
No.
Relativity specifies an IDEAL CLOCK: a clock whose reading realizes
proper time along its worldline.
It does not care whether the physical realization uses cesium,
hydrogen, rubidium, an optical transition, or something invented in
2100.
That's rather the point of a physical theory.
Newton didn't know what a GPS satellite was either. Newtonian mechanics
can nevertheless make predictions about one.
And yes, Galilean relativity similarly idealizes clocks when you write
t' = t.
That equation is about the time coordinates of Galilean frames.
It isn't a specification sheet for a cesium oscillator either.
But I notice something else.
Every time we reach this:
Why is the GPS amount approximately 38 us/day?
you snip it.
Again.
Your position is:
Galilean physics:
"compensate clocks!"
Fine.
How much?
You already answered:
Galilean physics says nothing.
Yet the actual number is approximately:
+45 us/day
-7 us/day
-----------
+38 us/day.
And the corresponding engineering compensation is based on that
quantitative rate effect.
So please don't snip it this time:
FROM YOUR GALILEAN RULE, CALCULATE THE 38 us/day.
Not "clocks should be corrected."
Not "t'=t."
Not "Einstein was an idiot."
The number:
38 us/day.
Because "correct the clock" without being able to calculate the
correction is not a prediction.
It's advice to turn a knob without knowing how far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dac1f650a8802b$84042$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674099 |
On 10/2/2026 5:32 PM, Python wrote: > Yes, Maciej. One simple answer. > > A physical theory predicts the result for a SPECIFIED physical setup. Yeah. Specified as "perfect". A great specification, indeed. And you laughed, trash, when I told you "it is going to be t'=t IF they use a perfect clock", right, trash? You're too dumb to notice such subtle details - "correct","perfect", "proper" - may look like ordinary property words, but they're really keywords including a command "go for it whenever you can". Oh, yes, The Shit IS forbidding clock corrections, Galilean relativity IS commanding them whenever clocks desynchronize and so on. Moreover, none of your precious experiments can falsify them. When the real clocks don't want to fit your idiocies you simply say - "wrong clocks!!", that's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Su_mhR-mvxmkpzkrCG0JgCmy_Qo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674102 |
Le 02/10/2026 à 18:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/2/2026 5:32 PM, Python wrote: >> Yes, Maciej. One simple answer. >> >> A physical theory predicts the result for a SPECIFIED physical setup. > > > Yeah. Specified as "perfect". A great > specification, indeed. > > And you laughed, trash, when I told you > "it is going to be t'=t IF they use a > perfect clock", right, trash? > > You're too dumb to notice such subtle > details - "correct","perfect", "proper" - > may look like ordinary property words, > but they're really keywords including a > command "go for it whenever you can". > > Oh, yes, The Shit IS forbidding clock > corrections, Galilean relativity IS > commanding them whenever clocks > desynchronize and so on. Moreover, > none of your precious experiments > can falsify them. When the real > clocks don't want to fit your idiocies > you simply say - "wrong clocks!!", that's > all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Q3t3juJoCFonFP2bNnSrRFjRDVY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674102 |
Le 02/10/2026 à 18:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/2/2026 5:32 PM, Python wrote:
>> Yes, Maciej. One simple answer.
>>
>> A physical theory predicts the result for a SPECIFIED physical setup.
>
>
> Yeah. Specified as "perfect". A great
> specification, indeed.
>
> And you laughed, trash, when I told you
> "it is going to be t'=t IF they use a
> perfect clock", right, trash?
>
> You're too dumb to notice such subtle
> details - "correct","perfect", "proper" -
> may look like ordinary property words,
> but they're really keywords including a
> command "go for it whenever you can".
>
> Oh, yes, The Shit IS forbidding clock
> corrections, Galilean relativity IS
> commanding them whenever clocks
> desynchronize and so on. Moreover,
> none of your precious experiments
> can falsify them. When the real
> clocks don't want to fit your idiocies
> you simply say - "wrong clocks!!", that's
> all.
No, Maciej. You've just invented meanings for ordinary technical terms and
then attributed your inventions to the theories.
"Perfect clock" does NOT mean:
a clock whose indication has been commanded
to agree with my preferred theory.
It means an idealized clock free of instrumental imperfections, so that
its behavior can be compared with the theory.
And this:
"proper", "perfect", "correct"
secretly contain the command
"go for it whenever you can"
is simply something you've made up.
There is no such semantic rule in physics.
Your falsifiability argument is backwards too.
If two independently constructed high-quality clocks placed on different
worldlines systematically disagreed with the predicted proper-time
difference, that WOULD test the theory.
One cannot rescue the prediction merely by shouting "wrong clocks",
because clock imperfections have independently measurable properties:
frequency stability, environmental sensitivities, drift, reproducibility,
comparison against other standards, etc.
And your alleged asymmetry remains imaginary:
relativity -> FORBIDS corrections
Galileo -> COMMANDS corrections
Neither statement follows from either theory.
They're Maciej's engineering commandments, not laws of physics.
And I notice that for the SECOND consecutive reply you've completely
snipped the quantitative question:
WHY 38 us/day?
You told us yourself that Galilean relativity says nothing about the
amount.
So once again:
Your alleged Galilean law:
"Correct the clocks!"
How much?
[snip]
Why that amount?
[snip]
Calculate 38 us/day from t'=t:
[snip]
You're spending an impressive number of words explaining why your
"Galilean correction" needn't actually calculate the correction.
But the knob still needs a number, Maciej.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db08b68322388c$111319$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674104 |
On 10/2/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote: > Le 02/10/2026 à 18:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/2/2026 5:32 PM, Python wrote: >>> Yes, Maciej. One simple answer. >>> >>> A physical theory predicts the result for a SPECIFIED physical setup. >> >> >> Yeah. Specified as "perfect". A great >> specification, indeed. >> >> And you laughed, trash, when I told you >> "it is going to be t'=t IF they use a >> perfect clock", right, trash? >> >> You're too dumb to notice such subtle >> details - "correct","perfect", "proper" - >> may look like ordinary property words, >> but they're really keywords including a >> command "go for it whenever you can". >> >> Oh, yes, The Shit IS forbidding clock >> corrections, Galilean relativity IS >> commanding them whenever clocks >> desynchronize and so on. Moreover, >> none of your precious experiments >> can falsify them. When the real >> clocks don't want to fit your idiocies >> you simply say - "wrong clocks!!", that's >> all. > > No, Maciej. You've just invented meanings for ordinary technical terms "perfect"? Ordinary technical term? Your babbling becomes more and more idiotic. > and then attributed your inventions to the theories. > > "Perfect clock" does NOT mean: > > a clock whose indication has been commanded > to agree with my preferred theory. > > It means an idealized clock free of instrumental imperfections, so that So that it agrees with my theory. And if it doesn't - it's imperfect. Like those broken by calibration GPS clocks. > "proper", "perfect", "correct" > secretly contain the command > "go for it whenever you can" > > is simply something you've made up. Denying the reality won't make the reality go away, poor piece of shit. > > There is no such semantic rule in physics. There is also no semantic rule you quoted. There are no semantic rules for "perfect" in your moronic religion. It's imported to it from the common language. > Your falsifiability argument is backwards too. > > If two independently constructed high-quality clocks placed on different > worldlines systematically disagreed with the predicted proper-time > difference, that WOULD test the theory. Unless a piece of shit like yourself insisted they're broken by calibration. > One cannot rescue the prediction merely by shouting "wrong clocks", And in the long run your mad assertion that GPS engineers have broken their clocks with calibrations - won't go. But for a short term... > because clock imperfections have independently measurable properties: > frequency stability, environmental sensitivities, drift, reproducibility, > comparison against other standards, etc. > > And your alleged asymmetry remains imaginary: > > relativity -> FORBIDS corrections > Galileo -> COMMANDS corrections > > Neither statement follows from either theory. Both do. Denying the reality won't make it go away. > So once again: > > Your alleged Galilean law: > "Correct the clocks!" The Shit - don't correct them, the differnce in indications must appear. The reality - corrected, t'=t, no difference in indications, common sense has been warning the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mN-eZWB9Ywe9g0DpRx1pkpvY6_4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674129 |
Your entire argument is still:
Relativity predicts X.
Engineers compensate X.
After compensation: approximately zero.
Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed.
Brilliant.
By the same logic:
Gravity predicts the ball will fall.
I catch the ball.
The ball doesn't hit the floor.
Newton falsified.
And you STILL haven't produced the alleged Galilean calculation of the
required correction.
Relativity:
calculate effect -> ~38 us/day -> compensate it
Maciej:
CORRECT CLOCK!
How much? Dunno.
Someone else calculates 38 us/day.
Apply 38 us/day.
See? GALILEO WAS RIGHT!
The knob still needs a number, Maciej.
Shouting "common sense" at it doesn't turn it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db10cf9feadea8$85672$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674130 |
On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote: > Your entire argument is still: > > Relativity predicts X. > Engineers compensate X. > After compensation: approximately zero. > Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed. Your entire agreement is still: Check! My knight would be on A3 if I didn't move it!!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <C9GkJaK7bMWL31lE-TsU3dtvv4s@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674137 |
Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote:
>> Your entire argument is still:
>>
>> Relativity predicts X.
>> Engineers compensate X.
>> After compensation: approximately zero.
>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed.
>
> Your entire agreement is still:
> Check! My knight would be on A3 if
> I didn't move it!!!!!!!!
Exactly, Maciej.
And your rebuttal is:
"Your knight is NOT on A3!"
Yes.
Because I moved it.
By a calculated amount.
That's the part you keep heroically rediscovering and then forgetting.
Your experimental method:
Predict where the knight goes if untouched.
Move the knight.
Observe where it is after moving it.
Declare the untouched prediction falsified.
At this point the chessboard is doing more physics than you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db11f6c850ef0e$87362$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674139 |
On 10/3/2026 6:15 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote: >>> Your entire argument is still: >>> >>> Relativity predicts X. >>> Engineers compensate X. >>> After compensation: approximately zero. >>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed. >> >> Your entire agreement is still: >> Check! My knight would be on A3 if >> I didn't move it!!!!!!!! > > Exactly, Maciej. > > And your rebuttal is: > > "Your knight is NOT on A3!" > > Yes. > > Because I moved it. The reason doesn't matter, there is no check, sorry, poor piece of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PDHUsVzcvDhcNRabefeK4XLH9Rk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674142 |
Le 03/10/2026 à 18:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/3/2026 6:15 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Your entire argument is still:
>>>>
>>>> Relativity predicts X.
>>>> Engineers compensate X.
>>>> After compensation: approximately zero.
>>>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed.
>>>
>>> Your entire agreement is still:
>>> Check! My knight would be on A3 if
>>> I didn't move it!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Exactly, Maciej.
>>
>> And your rebuttal is:
>>
>> "Your knight is NOT on A3!"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Because I moved it.
>
> The reason doesn't matter, there is no
> check, sorry, poor piece of shit.
Exactly, Maciej.
There is no check AFTER I move the knight.
That was the purpose of moving it.
Your logic is now literally:
Knight on A3 -> check.
Move knight away from A3.
No check.
Therefore:
knight on A3 wouldn't have been check.
"The reason doesn't matter" is the masterpiece.
The reason is THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT.
GPS:
uncompensated rate -> predicted drift
apply calculated compensation
-> drift largely cancelled
Maciej:
Look! No drift!
The reason doesn't matter!
Subtraction followed by amnesia has now become an explicit methodology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db13055c25abf6$87364$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674144 |
On 10/3/2026 6:33 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 18:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/3/2026 6:15 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Your entire argument is still: >>>>> >>>>> Relativity predicts X. >>>>> Engineers compensate X. >>>>> After compensation: approximately zero. >>>>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed. >>>> >>>> Your entire agreement is still: >>>> Check! My knight would be on A3 if >>>> I didn't move it!!!!!!!! >>> >>> Exactly, Maciej. >>> >>> And your rebuttal is: >>> >>> "Your knight is NOT on A3!" >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Because I moved it. >> >> The reason doesn't matter, there is no >> check, sorry, poor piece of shit. > > Exactly, Maciej. > > There is no check AFTER I move the knight. And there is no predicted by the idiot time dilation, i.e. difference in clock indication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FSa3Q7NfG9PAq1V4YM1QXpvVO_4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674146 |
Le 03/10/2026 à 18:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/3/2026 6:33 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 10/3/2026 6:15 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Your entire argument is still:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relativity predicts X.
>>>>>> Engineers compensate X.
>>>>>> After compensation: approximately zero.
>>>>>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your entire agreement is still:
>>>>> Check! My knight would be on A3 if
>>>>> I didn't move it!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, Maciej.
>>>>
>>>> And your rebuttal is:
>>>>
>>>> "Your knight is NOT on A3!"
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Because I moved it.
>>>
>>> The reason doesn't matter, there is no
>>> check, sorry, poor piece of shit.
>>
>> Exactly, Maciej.
>>
>> There is no check AFTER I move the knight.
>
>
> And there is no predicted by the
> idiot time dilation, i.e. difference
> in clock indication.
Correct, Maciej.
And there is no predicted check AFTER the knight is deliberately moved
to cancel it.
You've finally understood the analogy and somehow still think it helps
you.
predicted effect: X
engineered compensation: -X
observed residual: ~0
Maciej:
LOOK! NO X!
Yes.
Because X - X = 0.
Your entire refutation of relativity has now been reduced to being
surprised by subtraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web