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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674862 > unrolled thread

What has your shitty revolution changed

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

Contents

  What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 10:40 +0200
    Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 09:03 +0000
      Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 12:25 +0200
        Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 10:27 +0000
          Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 12:33 +0200
            Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 10:34 +0000
              Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 12:44 +0200
                Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 10:49 +0000
                  Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 12:50 +0200
                    Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 10:55 +0000
                      Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 12:59 +0200
                        Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 11:03 +0000
                          Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-23 13:08 +0200
                            Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-23 11:12 +0000
      Re: What has your shitty revolution changed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-24 10:45 -0700
        Re: What has your shitty revolution changed "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-24 20:54 +0200
          Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Sean Bahtiyarov <iy@nrhtbi.ru> - 2026-10-25 17:54 +0000
      Re: What has your shitty revolution changed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-25 22:34 +0100
        Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-25 22:57 +0100
          Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 15:01 -0700
        Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:58 -0700
          Re: What has your shitty revolution changed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-26 12:14 +0100
            Re: What has your shitty revolution changed Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 08:43 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#674862 — What has your shitty revolution changed

Before the idiot came - clocks
(mainly pendulums) were adjusted
to indicate t'=t and indicating t'=t,
with the precision as good as possible.

Now they are still adjusted to
indicate t'=t and still indicating
t'=t, with the precision as good as
possible (much better than 130 years
ago).


The only difference is that now
- a bunch of brainwashed crazies
is grumbling that it is incorrect
and improper and dirty and violating
Laws of Nature and disturbing The Song
of Universe, and shouldn't be taken
into account.

The reality fucks the cultists, of
course. Common sense has been warning.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#674864

Maciej,

> Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
> to indicate t'=t

Yes.

And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
scale.

Nobody disputes this.

What changed is that physics can predict that two equally well adjusted
clocks, following different trajectories and gravitational potentials,
will NOT naturally continue accumulating time at the same rate.

And GPS gives us a particularly embarrassing example for your story.

Take two properly adjusted atomic clocks.

Leave the relativistic orbital correction OFF.

Relativity predicts:

    +446.5 × 10^-12

NTS-2 measures:

    +442.5 × 10^-12

Then compensate that rate difference and you recover approximately:

    t' = t

You keep describing the last step as if it refuted the first two.

It doesn't.

> The only difference is that now - a bunch of brainwashed crazies
> is grumbling that it is incorrect and improper and dirty

Nobody says keeping GPS clocks synchronized is "incorrect", "improper"
or "dirty".

Quite the opposite.

RELATIVITY TELLS THE ENGINEERS HOW TO DO IT.

That's the wonderfully absurd part of your new thread:

    "What has your shitty revolution changed?"

Well, among other things, it supplied the quantitative correction that
modern satellite navigation actually uses.

Before Einstein:

    "Adjust the clocks."

After Einstein:

    "Adjust them by THIS MUCH."

And THIS MUCH was experimentally tested:

    predicted: +446.5 × 10^-12
    measured:  +442.5 × 10^-12

Your "common sense" has now produced several thousand words explaining
why clocks should be adjusted.

It still hasn't produced the number.

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

#674866

On 10/23/2026 11:03 AM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
>> to indicate t'=t
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
> scale.
> 
> Nobody disputes this.
> 
> What changed is that physics can predict that two equally well adjusted
> clocks

And grumble that the real clocks are
incorrect and improper and dirty and
violating Laws of Nature and disturbing
The Song of Universe, and shouldn't be
taken into account.
Sure.

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

#674868

Maciej,

> And grumble that the real clocks are
> incorrect and improper and dirty

Who says that?

Seriously. Quote it.

Relativity does not say a real clock is "incorrect", "improper" or
"dirty" because engineers adjust its rate.

GPS clocks are deliberately adjusted PRECISELY BECAUSE engineers want
them to realize GPS system time.

There is no conflict whatsoever:

    physics:
        predicts how the clock rate depends on its worldline

    engineering:
        adjusts the clock to obtain the desired system time

You have invented a religious commandment:

    THOU SHALT NOT ADJUST A CLOCK

attributed it to relativity, and have now spent several days heroically
defeating it.

Meanwhile actual relativity says:

    predicted orbital shift: +446.5 × 10^-12

and NTS-2 said:

    measured orbital shift:  +442.5 × 10^-12

You have now even conceded that this was a correct prediction.

So we're apparently finished with the physics.

All that remains is your furious argument with things relativity never
said.

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

#674870

On 10/23/2026 12:27 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> And grumble that the real clocks are
>> incorrect and improper and dirty
> 
> Who says that?

Any of the idiots from your bunch
of idiots, poor piece of shit.

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

#674872

Maciej,

> Any of the idiots from your bunch
> of idiots

Then quoting one should be remarkably easy.

You claim relativity says that deliberately adjusted GPS clocks are

    "incorrect"
    "improper"
    "dirty"
    "violating Laws of Nature"
    "disturbing The Song of Universe"
    "and shouldn't be taken into account."

Fine.

Give us ONE textbook, paper, physicist, GPS technical document, anything,
actually saying this.

Not your paraphrase.

A quotation.

Because what actual relativistic GPS engineering says is perfectly
mundane:

    predict the physical rate difference;
    compensate it;
    keep the clocks aligned with GPS system time.

You have spent several posts furiously attacking a position for which
you apparently cannot produce a single person who holds it.

Another heroic victory over a sentence nobody wrote.

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

#674876

On 10/23/2026 12:34 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> Any of the idiots from your bunch
>> of idiots
> 
> Then quoting one should be remarkably easy.

Remember those 2 idiots from nist
YOU were quoting to demonstrate
that synchronized clocks are not
ideal?
You only demonstrated that: fanatic
idiots grumbling that the real
clocks are incorrect, improper
and dirty.

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

#674879

Maciej,

> Remember those 2 idiots from nist
> YOU were quoting to demonstrate
> that synchronized clocks are not
> ideal?

Yes, I remember the NIST reference.

And no, that is not what it said.

Ashby and Patla explicitly distinguish two concepts:

    proper time:
        the time measured by an ideal clock along its worldline

    coordinate time:
        a time coordinate realized by a grid/system of synchronized
        clocks

Their point was precisely that synchronized clocks can be used to
realize a coordinate-time reference against which differences in local
proper-time rates due to motion and gravitation are compared.

Nothing there says:

    synchronized clocks are "dirty"
    synchronized clocks are "incorrect"
    synchronized clocks violate nature
    synchronized clocks should not be used

Quite the contrary: synchronized clocks are essential to the system
they are describing.

What you did was take:

    "an adjusted/synchronized clock need not simply display its
     unmodified local proper time"

and translate it into:

    "PHYSICISTS SAY REAL CLOCKS ARE BAD AND DIRTY!"

Those aren't remotely the same statement.

A GPS satellite clock can be an excellent physical clock AND be
deliberately frequency-adjusted so that its output realizes GPS
coordinate time rather than simply accumulating its unmodified local
proper time.

That's engineering, not moral condemnation.

So no, your promised quotation still hasn't appeared.

You remembered two NIST physicists.

Now try remembering what they actually wrote.

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

#674881

On 10/23/2026 12:49 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> Remember those 2 idiots from nist
>> YOU were quoting to demonstrate
>> that synchronized clocks are not
>> ideal?
> 
> Yes, I remember the NIST reference.
> 
> And no, that is not what it said.

Wrong, it is what it said.

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

#674883

Maciej,

> Wrong, it is what it said.

Excellent.

Then quote it.

Not:

    "what Maciej says they meant"

but the actual sentence in which those NIST physicists say that
synchronized real clocks are:

    incorrect,
    improper,
    dirty,
    violating the laws of nature,
    or shouldn't be taken into account.

You made the claim.

I challenged you to provide the quotation.

Your response is:

    "it is what it said."

That's not a quotation.

The floor remains yours.

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

#674885

On 10/23/2026 12:55 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> Wrong, it is what it said.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Then quote it.

It's your reference, quote it yourself, trash.

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

#674886

Maciej,

> It's your reference, quote it yourself, trash.

No.

YOU made the claim:

    those NIST physicists say synchronized real clocks are
    "incorrect", "improper", "dirty", etc.

I say they said no such thing.

The burden is therefore beautifully simple:

    Maciej claims quotation exists.
    Python asks for quotation.
    Maciej refuses to quote it and tells Python to find it.

That's not how evidence works.

If the reference really says what you claim, this should take you about
thirty seconds:

    author, page, quotation.

Instead we have:

    "IT SAYS IT!"
    "Quote it."
    "YOU QUOTE IT!"

Very persuasive.

Still waiting.

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

#674888

On 10/23/2026 1:03 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
>> It's your reference, quote it yourself, trash.
> 
> No.

So - fuck off.
Things are exactly as I say.
A brainwashed fanatic idiot screaming
"NOOOOOO!!!!" is not changing anything.

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

#674890

Maciej,

> Things are exactly as I say.

Excellent demonstration of your evidential standard.

    Maciej: NIST says X.
    Me: Quote where NIST says X.
    Maciej: You quote it.
    Me: No, it's your claim.
    Maciej: FUCK OFF. THINGS ARE EXACTLY AS I SAY.

Case closed, apparently.

You claimed those authors said something.

You cannot produce the sentence.

So until you do, we have no quotation, no evidence, and no argument.

Just:

    THINGS ARE EXACTLY AS I SAY.

I'm sure NIST will be devastated.

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

#674952

Python wrote:
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> > Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
> > to indicate t'=t
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
> scale.
> 
> Nobody disputes this.
> 
> What changed is that physics can predict that two equally well adjusted
> clocks, following different trajectories and gravitational potentials,
> will NOT naturally continue accumulating time at the same rate.
> 
> And GPS gives us a particularly embarrassing example for your story.
> 
> Take two properly adjusted atomic clocks.
> 
> Leave the relativistic orbital correction OFF.
> 
> Relativity predicts:
> 
>     +446.5 × 10^-12
> 
> NTS-2 measures:
> 
>     +442.5 × 10^-12
> 
> Then compensate that rate difference and you recover approximately:
> 
>     t' = t
> 
> You keep describing the last step as if it refuted the first two.
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> > The only difference is that now - a bunch of brainwashed crazies
> > is grumbling that it is incorrect and improper and dirty
> 
> Nobody says keeping GPS clocks synchronized is "incorrect", "improper"
> or "dirty".
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> RELATIVITY TELLS THE ENGINEERS HOW TO DO IT.
> 
> That's the wonderfully absurd part of your new thread:
> 
>     "What has your shitty revolution changed?"
> 
> Well, among other things, it supplied the quantitative correction that
> modern satellite navigation actually uses.
> 
> Before Einstein:
> 
>     "Adjust the clocks."
> 
> After Einstein:
> 
>     "Adjust them by THIS MUCH."
> 
> And THIS MUCH was experimentally tested:
> 
>     predicted: +446.5 × 10^-12
>     measured:  +442.5 × 10^-12
> 
> Your "common sense" has now produced several thousand words explaining
> why clocks should be adjusted.
> 
> It still hasn't produced the number.


i don't get it.

are you saying if you have two clocks,
you cannot scronize them if the other clock is two inches away from each
other? you need to 'adjust' it for the 2 inches of distance???


Let me take it a step further so you don't need to measure suchs a small
distance in time...

One clock is here, and you move the other clock not 2 inches from each
other, but...

the other clock you move it to the edge of the universe...

What time will the other clock read? an hour difference??



-- 
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]

#674958

Den 24.10.2026 19:45, skrev The Starmaker:
> 
> i don't get it.
> 
> are you saying if you have two clocks,
> you cannot scronize them if the other clock is two inches away from each
> other? you need to 'adjust' it for the 2 inches of distance???
> 
> 
> Let me take it a step further so you don't need to measure suchs a small
> distance in time...
> 
> One clock is here, and you move the other clock not 2 inches from each
> other, but...
> 
> the other clock you move it to the edge of the universe...
> 
> What time will the other clock read? an hour difference??
> 

The rate difference between a clock on the ground at Earth
and an equal clock "at the edge of the universe" is:

  f_infinity/f_Earth = (1 + 6.9693e-10)




-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#674974

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 24.10.2026 19:45, skrev The Starmaker:
>> are you saying if you have two clocks,
>> you cannot scronize them if the other clock is two inches away from
>> each other? you need to 'adjust' it for the 2 inches of distance???
>> 
>> 
>> Let me take it a step further so you don't need to measure suchs a
>> small distance in time...
>> 
>> One clock is here, and you move the other clock not 2 inches from each
>> other, but...
>> 
>> the other clock you move it to the edge of the universe...
>> 
>> What time will the other clock read? an hour difference??
>
> The rate difference between a clock on the ground at Earth and an equal
> clock "at the edge of the universe" is:
> 
>   f_infinity/f_Earth = (1 + 6.9693e-10)

nonsense, if that time makes up the age of the universe, that time is too 
short already, close to not existent

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

#674976

Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:

> Maciej,
> 
> > Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
> > to indicate t'=t
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
> scale.
> 
> Nobody disputes this.

Maciej has got even that wrong.
In Einstein's day, so 1905-1915, there was nothing to compare,
because there was only one 'master clock'.
(the rotation of the Earth)

Pendulum clocks, accurate to at best a fraction of a second per day,
were adjusted on a daily basis to the rotation of the Earth
by observating stellar transits at observatories.
Pendulum clocks at one observatory were in sync with pendulum clocks at
another observatory only because both were synchronisd to the Earth.

Einstein could only dream of clocks that would be accurate enough
to verify relativity directly.
It would take the development of atomic clocks after WWII
to achieve that. (as you have explained many times already)

All of his harping on pendulum clocks in the context of relativity
is pure, and irrelevant bullshit,

Jan

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

#674978

On 10/25/2026 10:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Maciej,
>>
>>> Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
>>> to indicate t'=t
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
>> scale.
>>
>> Nobody disputes this.
> 
> Maciej has got even that wrong.
> In Einstein's day, so 1905-1915, there was nothing to compare,
> because there was only one 'master clock'.
> (the rotation of the Earth)
> 
> Pendulum clocks, accurate to at best a fraction of a second per day,
> were adjusted on a daily basis to the rotation of the Earth
> by observating stellar transits at observatories.
> Pendulum clocks at one observatory were in sync with pendulum clocks at
> another observatory only because both were synchronisd to the Earth.
> 
> Einstein could only dream of clocks that would be accurate enough
> to verify relativity directly.

We have them now, they're placed at GPS,
- and they keep measuring t'=t, just
like accurate clocks always did.

Common sense had been warning the idiot.

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

#674980

On 10/25/2026 02:57 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 10/25/2026 10:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>>> Before the idiot came - clocks (mainly pendulums) were adjusted
>>>> to indicate t'=t
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> And after Einstein, clocks are still adjusted to realize a chosen time
>>> scale.
>>>
>>> Nobody disputes this.
>>
>> Maciej has got even that wrong.
>> In Einstein's day, so 1905-1915, there was nothing to compare,
>> because there was only one 'master clock'.
>> (the rotation of the Earth)
>>
>> Pendulum clocks, accurate to at best a fraction of a second per day,
>> were adjusted on a daily basis to the rotation of the Earth
>> by observating stellar transits at observatories.
>> Pendulum clocks at one observatory were in sync with pendulum clocks at
>> another observatory only because both were synchronisd to the Earth.
>>
>> Einstein could only dream of clocks that would be accurate enough
>> to verify relativity directly.
>
> We have them now, they're placed at GPS,
> - and they keep measuring t'=t, just
> like accurate clocks always did.
>
> Common sense had been warning the idiot.
>
>
>


Those are the corrections clocked down from the array,
that's due the Parameterized Post-Newtonian the Corrections,
which makes sense since the Earth is geocentric in the
heliocentric in the polaricentric, and "space warp"
(and "space wake") are quite a few things.

GPS satellites advise correcting the clocks after
dead reckoning, not the other way around, or, rather,
not all the way the other way around, they synchronize,
not dictate.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web