Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674987 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-26 08:56 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-10-29 21:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 95 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 08:56 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 10:31 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 13:37 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:59 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 15:29 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 14:47 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 16:00 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 15:13 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 16:24 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 15:35 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 16:44 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:01 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:14 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:23 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:31 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:36 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:41 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:47 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:50 +0000
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 16:54 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:57 +0100
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 17:55 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 17:08 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 18:23 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 17:25 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 18:31 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 17:40 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 18:59 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 18:04 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 19:07 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 18:16 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 19:23 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 18:30 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 19:35 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 18:40 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 19:45 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 18:53 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 19:57 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-26 19:04 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-26 20:12 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 00:49 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 06:52 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 11:38 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 12:59 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 12:00 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 13:10 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 12:11 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 13:21 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 12:23 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 13:37 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 12:41 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 14:15 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 13:17 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 14:25 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 13:28 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 14:35 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 14:50 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 13:57 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 15:04 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 14:11 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 15:21 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 14:31 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 15:46 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 14:59 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 15:10 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 16:24 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 15:40 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 17:12 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:21 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 17:30 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:37 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 17:47 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:51 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 17:57 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 17:03 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 18:08 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 17:10 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 18:17 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 17:28 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 18:42 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 17:44 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 18:56 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 17:59 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 19:18 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 18:22 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 19:42 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-27 18:45 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-27 19:59 +0100
Re: Acceleration Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-28 00:09 +0000
Re: Acceleration Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-28 06:06 +0100
Re: Acceleration Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 10:13 -0700
Re: Acceleration The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-29 21:47 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 18:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e2727b6eb62316$7106$2210059$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675148 |
On 10/27/2026 6:10 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> the rate is not important > > 38 us/day IS a rate difference. Even the idiot understood the rate is not important. You. of course, are much stupider. > If two clocks differ in rate by 38 us/day, their indications > progressively diverge by 38 us each day. Didn't happen in GPS, against the mad idiot's prophecies. > GPS compensates that rate difference precisely to prevent that divergence. Against the idiot's prophecies, against his Holiest Postulate, against your SI idiocy trying to enforce the idiot's nonsenses. Common sense had been warning the idiot. > > Calling the resulting divergence a "clock error" changes absolutely > nothing. Sorry, poor piece of shit, you're a mindless fanatic idiot, your opinion is worthless. And wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vxnXVOnvSWvXU44AmDwI41sCgdw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675150 |
Maciej,
> Didn't happen in GPS
Because it was compensated.
This is becoming surreal.
Without compensation: clocks diverge.
GPS engineers compensate the predicted divergence.
Therefore: clocks don't diverge.
You:
"See! The predicted divergence didn't happen!"
Yes, Maciej.
That's what "compensation" means.
> Against the idiot's prophecies
No. The "prophecy" is the amount that must be compensated.
If relativity predicted the wrong rate, applying its compensation would
CREATE a systematic drift.
It doesn't.
You can call the 38 us/day "time dilation", "clock error", or "Fred".
GPS still needs essentially the number relativity predicts.
And after several dozen posts, you still haven't supplied yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 18:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e273d662379afc$3941$2198819$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675151 |
On 10/27/2026 6:28 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Didn't happen in GPS > > Because it was compensated. > > This is becoming surreal. > > Without compensation: clocks diverge. > GPS engineers compensate the predicted divergence. > Therefore: clocks don't diverge. > > You: > > "See! The predicted divergence didn't happen!" > > Yes, Maciej. Yes, Python. The predicted divergence didn't happen. >> Against the idiot's prophecies > > No. The "prophecy" is the amount that must be compensated. Lie. The prophecy is a difference of indications. Which didn't happen. A mad idiot screaming that he can explain why it didn't happen doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen. If your mad religion succeeded in enforcing this difference - it would happen. But your mad religion didn't succeed, and instead time dilation we only have a mad idiot screaming that since he can explain why it didn't happen - it happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tjvz_qFHylubV5J-5vejAfnE0bg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675152 |
Maciej,
You're just repeating the same nonsense now.
Relativity predicts what UNCOMPENSATED clocks will do.
GPS deliberately compensates that predicted rate difference, so the
operational clocks don't accumulate the predicted divergence.
Your argument remains:
Prediction: rain.
I open an umbrella.
I stay dry.
Therefore the prediction of rain was false.
Enough repetition.
Tell us what YOUR model predicts for an UNCOMPENSATED GPS satellite
clock.
A number.
Relativity: about +38 us/day.
Maciej: ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 18:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e2749789d6a18c$3942$2198819$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675153 |
On 10/27/2026 6:44 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > > You're just repeating the same nonsense now. > > Relativity predicts what UNCOMPENSATED clocks will do. Python, You're just repeating the same nonsensical lie. No. Your moronic physics predicts MEASUREMENT RESULTS. MEASUREMENTS are performed with CORRECTLY CALIBRATED devices. How was things in Newtonian physics? Uncompensated clocks too?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgub279naQDbPpeFQFTnHoczhns@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675154 |
Maciej,
> MEASUREMENTS are performed with CORRECTLY CALIBRATED
> devices.
You are confusing calibration with cancellation of the phenomenon being
measured.
Newtonian physics predicts what a clock, pendulum, spring, projectile,
etc. will do under specified physical conditions.
You don't "calibrate" a pendulum so that changing gravity produces no
change in its period, then announce that Newton's prediction failed
because your corrected display stayed constant.
Same with GPS.
Relativity predicts the physical rate of an uncorrected clock in orbit.
Engineering then deliberately modifies its output to realize GPS time.
And your question:
> How was things in Newtonian physics? Uncompensated
> clocks too?
Yes, of course.
If Newtonian theory predicts that changing conditions change an
instrument's physical rate, you can measure that change before
correcting for it.
"Correctly calibrated" does not mean:
physically forced to give the result Maciej has defined as correct.
That peculiar definition is yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 19:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e275c7c0571e09$5455$2205363$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675156 |
On 10/27/2026 6:59 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> MEASUREMENTS are performed with CORRECTLY CALIBRATED >> devices. > > You are confusing calibration with cancellation of the phenomenon being > measured. No, poor piece of shit. I'm not confusing anything and measurements are performed with calibrated devices. Your sudden "MUST BE UNCOMPENSATED!!!!" requirement is, as usual, both baseless and idiotic. > Newtonian physics predicts what a clock, pendulum, spring, projectile, > etc. will do under specified physical conditions. Bullshit. Newtonian physics is asserting that proper/perfect/correct clocks are t'=t clocks, similarly to The Shit, and works because people adjust whatever clocks they have to obey that - unlike The Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n_d1Gzvvah-dPeaknmYjy1HVMK8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675158 |
Maciej,
> Newtonian physics is asserting that
> proper/perfect/correct clocks are t'=t clocks
Yes: Newtonian mechanics has a universal Galilean time t.
But this is where your argument becomes circular:
define "correct clock" = clock adjusted to show t'=t
observe that adjusted clocks show t'=t
conclude that experiment proves t'=t.
That proves nothing experimentally. You built the result into
"correct".
And Newton certainly predicts the raw behaviour of clocks. A pendulum's
rate, for example, changes with g. We don't first adjust it to conceal
that change and then declare the change never occurred.
Same with GPS.
The question remains the one you keep avoiding:
What does your model predict for the satellite clock BEFORE
its output is deliberately adjusted?
Relativity gives ~38 us/day.
You give a definition of "correct".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e2771fe80a91e3$3947$2198819$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675159 |
On 10/27/2026 7:22 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Newtonian physics is asserting that >> proper/perfect/correct clocks are t'=t clocks > > Yes: Newtonian mechanics has a universal Galilean time t. > > But this is where your argument becomes circular: > > define "correct clock" = clock adjusted to show t'=t > observe that adjusted clocks show t'=t > conclude that experiment proves t'=t. Of course. Any working word/sentence based model is. Your Shit isn't because it doesn't work. It can assert correct clocks to be desynchronizing clocks "until Sun explode" and still won't observe your precious dilation, because engineers will always piss at its mad assertion same as they do now. > That proves nothing experimentally. Why not? The clocks do show t'=t for real. Not just for gedanken, like in the case of your mad Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z6vAMi99lBQ8INIUc08MloOG59I@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675160 |
Maciej,
> Why not? The clocks do show t'=t for
> real.
Because engineers MAKE them show t'=t.
You have finally made the circularity explicit:
"correct" means adjusted to show t'=t
correctly adjusted clocks show t'=t
therefore reality proves t'=t.
No, it proves the adjustment works.
And this is priceless:
> engineers will always piss at its mad assertion
Engineers use the relativistic prediction to determine HOW MUCH to adjust
the clocks.
If relativity predicted the wrong amount, the adjusted clocks would drift.
They don't.
So yes, the clocks show t'=t "for real".
Because engineers apply, for real, the correction you insist has nothing
to do with reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e2780381ead849$7108$2210059$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675161 |
On 10/27/2026 7:45 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Why not? The clocks do show t'=t for >> real. > > Because engineers MAKE them show t'=t. If they MADE them showing your idiocies you wouldn't object, would you? But, of course, it's not going to happen. And, well, engineers are a part of the reality. That your moronic religion is too primitive and stupid to model what they will do - doesn't change that they are and what they do is affecting what your moronic religion is babbling about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IoDVpjJAumDsoGz63h66A5QFE_I@jntp> |
| In reply to | #675162 |
Maciej,
> engineers are a part of the reality.
Brilliant.
So are thermostats.
Physics predicts how a room loses heat. A thermostat compensates for it.
Maciej concludes:
Room stayed at 20°C.
Therefore heat loss didn't happen.
Physics forgot to model the engineer.
GPS engineers compensate ~38 us/day BECAUSE the clocks would otherwise
drift by ~38 us/day.
Relativity predicts the drift.
Engineering cancels it.
And after fifty posts, your great alternative theory remains:
Whatever engineers correct never existed.
This isn't physics, Maciej.
It's arguing with the thermostat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 06:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18e299261b533de1$7874$2198819$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675169 |
On 10/28/2026 1:09 AM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> engineers are a part of the reality. > > Brilliant. > > So are thermostats. > > Physics predicts how a room loses heat. A thermostat compensates for it. > > Maciej concludes: No I don't, poor piece of shit Python lies like always. His mad lies don't change anything, however. > > Room stayed at 20°C. > Therefore heat loss didn't happen. > Physics forgot to model the engineer. Did temperature loss also happened? An idiot screaming "It happened!!!!! because our beloved guru said it will, and if the engineers didn't it would!!!!" would be just a screaming idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <UNCcnQKFnbYsRn33nZ2dnZfqnPv-P8Hb@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675143 |
On 10/27/2026 10:03 AM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> For sure not 0 predicted by The Shit of >> Einstein > > But Einstein does NOT predict 0. > > That's the entire problem with your argument. > > Relativity predicts the uncorrected GPS rate difference: about +38 us/day. > > GPS engineers therefore apply approximately the opposite frequency offset. > > You have somehow turned: > > theory predicts X > engineers compensate X > > into: > > theory predicts 0. > > It doesn't. > > And the SI definition doesn't predict 0 either. It defines the second; > it doesn't decree that clocks on different worldlines must remain > synchronized. > > So once again: what does YOUR model predict quantitatively for the > uncorrected satellite clock? > > Relativity gives a number. > > You keep giving adjectives. Hah, you thought I was going to say "infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration". Which I did, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AE42169.A8B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #675083 |
Yous people haven't any idea of the definition of the word... Acceleration. It means...to stop.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web