Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667147 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 22:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-11-10 21:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-06 22:03 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-07 11:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 12:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 15:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 16:45 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 18:08 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 17:54 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 19:43 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 05:01 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-08 07:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-07 20:26 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 21:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Woodrow Fukunaka <fkf@rodffa.jp> - 2025-11-07 21:24 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Rocco Rooijakkers <sk@acork.nl> - 2025-11-07 23:44 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raleigh Zielinski <reae@ierae.pl> - 2025-11-07 17:40 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Rayvis Sokolofsky <oysssy@sosy.pl> - 2025-11-07 19:11 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-22 12:57 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-07 19:25 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-08 13:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 11:12 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 19:18 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 19:45 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-09 21:14 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Denny Meeuwes <nydue@yeeeey.nl> - 2025-11-09 20:38 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-10 07:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 13:55 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-10 15:51 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Tyler Bukoski <iuvyk@rsttyoyuj.pl> - 2025-11-10 17:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-11 08:34 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-11 20:58 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Colomer Kalakos <rkmo@krmklra.gr> - 2025-11-12 00:34 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 09:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raymon Raimanov <oay@ormmao.ru> - 2025-11-12 18:37 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:12 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 21:38 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 13:08 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:39 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Stetson Sówka <ktt@ewshr.pl> - 2025-11-14 18:14 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:01 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:02 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 20:41 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-16 15:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-17 19:52 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 07:45 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 10:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 15:35 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 20:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 21:55 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Wendyl Agelakos <na@las.gr> - 2025-11-16 13:30 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-17 20:53 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 07:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-18 11:29 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 21:39 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 21:57 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-21 11:46 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-21 20:15 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-21 20:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 02:06 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 08:36 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:00 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 19:50 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:26 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-21 22:13 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-22 09:41 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 12:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:00 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 20:05 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 12:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 13:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 03:28 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-22 09:50 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 13:23 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:02 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 21:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-23 09:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 21:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 22:55 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-25 09:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-27 21:40 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-27 22:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Efrain Ślusarski <iiiar@fesl.pl> - 2025-11-28 12:48 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 14:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:40 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 20:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 13:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 13:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-22 11:10 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-23 10:12 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:05 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:12 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:16 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:26 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:28 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:33 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:41 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 12:06 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-24 10:21 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-25 00:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-25 01:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-27 08:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 18:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 22:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 12:10 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-13 13:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 22:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:48 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 12:15 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Cleveland Balabaev <aave@nnal.ru> - 2025-11-14 11:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:05 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 21:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Jerrell Kántor <ktl@rrkojh.hu> - 2025-11-16 13:21 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 09:43 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 12:11 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Erin Schuhmacher <irre@ms.de> - 2025-11-12 00:30 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Flex Habibulaev <vi@hvefi.ru> - 2025-11-10 21:08 +0000
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 15:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fa12t$3hhvh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667290 |
Den 14.11.2025 13:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> >>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of >>> lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so >>> sometimes you admit that the real measurement >>> re3sults don't fit your Shit at all. >> >> >> Can you name one "real measurement" which >> "don't fit" SR or GR? > Sure. A quotation of Paul B. Andersen>> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >> to last 86400 s > So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - > the real measurement result is 86400. Everybody but morons will see that this is a confirmation of GR's prediction. For morons: - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will measure a mean solar day to last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day to last 86400 s If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs as predicted by GR. Morons still haven't got it. Are you a moron? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18783649d122149c$4045367$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667303 |
On 11/15/2025 3:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.11.2025 13:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> >>>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of >>>> lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so >>>> sometimes you admit that the real measurement >>>> re3sults don't fit your Shit at all. >>> >>> >>> Can you name one "real measurement" which >>> "don't fit" SR or GR? > >> Sure. > > A quotation of Paul B. Andersen>> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - > 4.4647e-10) >>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>> to last 86400 s > >> So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - >> the real measurement result is 86400. > > Everybody but morons will see that this is So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - the real measurement result is 86400. The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious maniac end here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 20:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fakve$3n8b8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667305 |
Den 15.11.2025 16:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/15/2025 3:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 14.11.2025 13:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you name one "real measurement" which >>>> "don't fit" SR or GR? >>> >>> Sure. >>> >>> > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>> > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>> > to last 86400 s >>> >>> >>> So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - >>> the real measurement result is 86400. >> >> Everybody but morons will see that this is >> a confirmation of GR's prediction. >> >> For morons: >> >> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >> measure a mean solar day to last >> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >> >> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >> to last 86400 s >> >> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >> as predicted by GR. >> > So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us the GPS clock is adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) so > the real measurement result is 86400. if the GPS clock hadn't been adjusted down, then the GPS clock would have measured a mean solar day to last 86400 s + 38.6 μs as predicted by GR. So the real measurement confirms GR. Well done, Maciej. You are learning! > The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious > maniac end here. So, so, Maciej. You have not been deliberately lying. You have been talking nonsense because you don't know better. But now you have learned and know better, so the lies end here. Right? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187847c7c455b7b8$7004385$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667309 |
On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 15.11.2025 16:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/15/2025 3:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 14.11.2025 13:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Can you name one "real measurement" which >>>>> "don't fit" SR or GR? > >>>> >>>> Sure. >>>> >>>> > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>> > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>> > to last 86400 s >>>> >>>> >>>> So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - >>>> the real measurement result is 86400. > >>> >>> Everybody but morons will see that this is >>> a confirmation of GR's prediction. >>> >>> For morons: >>> >>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>> measure a mean solar day to last >>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>> >>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>> to last 86400 s >>> >>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>> as predicted by GR. >>> > > >> So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us > > the GPS clock is adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) Of course it is. Was your idiot guru too stupid to predict that a clock is going to be adjusted? Too bad for him. Common sense has been warning. Anyway, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - the real measurement result is 86400. The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious maniac end here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fcile$4rc6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667311 |
Den 15.11.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.11.2025 16:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/15/2025 3:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>> >>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>> to last 86400 s >>>> >>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>> as predicted by GR. The real measurement confirms GR. >> the GPS clock is adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) > Of course it is. Was your idiot guru > too stupid to predict that a clock is going > to be adjusted? Too bad for him. Common sense > has been warning. > > Anyway, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - > the real measurement result is 86400. > The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious > maniac end here. > Fine. Case closed. ------------------------ BTW Maciej, have you given up finding a "real measurement" which "don't fit" SR or GR? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 15:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187882d770df61c2$21793379$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667314 |
On 11/16/2025 2:13 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 15.11.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.11.2025 16:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/15/2025 3:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>> >>>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>>> to last 86400 s >>>>> >>>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>> as predicted by GR. > > The real measurement confirms GR. Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of shit as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit they have little in common with those moronic delusions of an insane crazie. > > BTW Maciej, > have you given up finding a "real measurement" > which "don't fit" SR or GR? I don't have to find it at all - here it is: where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - the real measurement result is 86400. The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious maniac end here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ffqsd$12c9f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667319 |
Den 16.11.2025 15:25, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/16/2025 2:13 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>> >>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>> to last 86400 s >>>> >>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>> as predicted by GR. >>>> >>>> Everybody but morons will see that this is >>>> a confirmation of GR's prediction. >> >> The real measurement confirms GR. > Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece > of shit as you are can't lie non stop, so > sometimes you admit they have little in > common with those moronic delusions of > an insane crazie. > >> >> BTW Maciej, >> have you given up finding a "real measurement" >> which "don't fit" SR or GR? > I don't have to find it at all - here it > is: where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - > the real measurement result is 86400. > The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious > maniac end here. > https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsArgument.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 07:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187906e49550a13b$7440524$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667337 |
On 11/17/2025 7:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 16.11.2025 15:25, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/16/2025 2:13 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>> >>>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>>> to last 86400 s >>>>> >>>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>> as predicted by GR. >>>>> >>>>> Everybody but morons will see that this is >>>>> a confirmation of GR's prediction. > >>> >>> The real measurement confirms GR. > >> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece >> of shit as you are can't lie non stop, so >> sometimes you admit they have little in >> common with those moronic delusions of >> an insane crazie. >> > >>> >>> BTW Maciej, >>> have you given up finding a "real measurement" >>> which "don't fit" SR or GR? > >> I don't have to find it at all - here it >> is: where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - >> the real measurement result is 86400. >> The insane lies of a brainwwashed religious >> maniac end here. >> > > https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsArgument.pdf > See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. But you will do what you can for your idiot guru and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting every doggie to do its duty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 10:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fhf4q$1f6e9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667341 |
Den 18.11.2025 07:45, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/17/2025 7:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 16.11.2025 15:25, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/16/2025 2:13 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>>> >>>>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>>>> to last 86400 s >>>>>> >>>>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>>> as predicted by GR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everybody but morons will see that this is >>>>>> a confirmation of GR's prediction. >>>> >>>> The real measurement confirms GR. > > See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot > guru to be not even consistent, and you can do > nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and > slandering. > But you will do what you can for your idiot guru > and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting > every doggie to do its duty. > https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsArgument.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18792094e1e3dee8$22438850$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667343 |
On 11/18/2025 10:44 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 18.11.2025 07:45, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/17/2025 7:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 16.11.2025 15:25, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/16/2025 2:13 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>> On 11/15/2025 8:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will >>>>>>> measure a mean solar day to last >>>>>>> 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) >>>>>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day >>>>>>> to last 86400 s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the rate of the GPS clock not had been adjusted down, >>>>>>> then it obviously would have measured a mean solar day to >>>>>>> last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400 s + 38.6 μs >>>>>>> as predicted by GR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everybody but morons will see that this is >>>>>>> a confirmation of GR's prediction. > >>>>> >>>>> The real measurement confirms GR. > >> >> See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot >> guru to be not even consistent, and you can do >> nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and >> slandering. >> But you will do what you can for your idiot guru >> and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting >> every doggie to do its duty. >> > > https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsArgument.pdf\ See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. But you will do what you can for your idiot guru and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting every doggie to do its duty. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 20:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10figk7$1p4fm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667348 |
Den 18.11.2025 15:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot > guru to be not even consistent, and you can do > nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and > slandering. > But you will do what you can for your idiot guru > and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting > every doggie to do its duty. Maciej's doggie doing his duty and proving that The Shit is just that: https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsDoggie.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1879354a7864a955$7124744$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667351 |
On 11/18/2025 8:16 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 18.11.2025 15:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot >> guru to be not even consistent, and you can do >> nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and >> slandering. >> But you will do what you can for your idiot guru >> and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting >> every doggie to do its duty. > > Maciej's doggie doing his duty and proving that The Shit is just that: > > https://paulba.no/div/MaciejsDoggie.pdf See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. But you will do what you can for your idiot guru and your moronic religion. The Shit is expecting every doggie to do its duty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wendyl Agelakos <na@las.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fcjlg$5k5i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667309 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > if the GPS clock hadn't been adjusted down, then the GPS clock would > have measured a mean solar day to last 86400 s + 38.6 μs as predicted by > GR. in that configuration you don't have a microsecond yet. Nor seconds. You two talks discussions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 09:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mo04s3Ff2a9U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667275 |
Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > >> >> A model is a simplyfied representation of something. >> >> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make >> predictions. >> >> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, >> because the model works upon entirely different principles than the >> real thing does. > > The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with > infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction > is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.) You are just a hopelss case! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r2LSQ.25312$DJ42.21897@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667328 |
Den 17.11.2025 09:37, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> A model is a simplyfied representation of something. >>> It has the advantage of being able to be computed >>> and to make predictions. >>> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to >>> some degree, because the model works upon entirely >>> different principles than the real thing does. >>> Therefore, we need to decide: >>> do we want usability or precision? >>> >>> we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, >>> because we want it that way. >>> Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong >>> and not we human beings. >>> >>> To create good modells we need good understanding of >>> the acting principles, which nature actually uses. >>> But we can't use the same principles in models, because >>> such a model could not be computed and would take >>> foreever to make any predictions. >>> >>> That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, >>> if we want to describe, how nature functions. >>> For a model we need something different, hence use >>> simplyfied approximations. >>> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less >>> precise. >>> 'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not >>> created by men. >>> This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. >>> And our taks is, to find out, how this functions. >>> If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest >>> of tasks, because such tasks are actually related to manmade >>> devices. >> Honestly Thomas: >> This is mindless nonsense! >> Are you inventing things as you go without considering >> the consequences of your inventions? > You are just a hopelss case! This is sci.physics.relativity There are two theories of relativity, and your fantasies have nothing to do with either of them. If you are not interested in relativity, don't post to this ng. If you are interested in relativity, return to the real world and respond to the following: "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", are both logically consistent theories. Do you dispute this? ==================== Both these theories of physics give precise predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Do you dispute this? ==================== For a vast number of experiments the predictions of SR and GR are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements. Do you dispute this? ==================== You can see some of these experiment here: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Now you can explain why the mathematical models SR and GR are "total nonsense". -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187907006fc67b7a$7440525$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667338 |
On 11/17/2025 8:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.11.2025 09:37, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> A model is a simplyfied representation of something. >>>> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make >>>> predictions. >>>> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some >>>> degree, because the model works upon entirely different principles >>>> than the real thing does. >>>> Therefore, we need to decide: >>>> do we want usability or precision? >>>> >>>> we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, because we want it >>>> that way. >>>> Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong and not we human >>>> beings. >>>> >>>> To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting >>>> principles, which nature actually uses. >>>> But we can't use the same principles in models, because such a model >>>> could not be computed and would take foreever to make any predictions. >>>> >>>> That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, >>>> if we want to describe, how nature functions. >>>> For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied >>>> approximations. >>>> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. >>>> 'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not created by >>>> men. >>>> This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. And our >>>> taks is, to find out, how this functions. >>>> If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest of >>>> tasks, because such tasks are actually related to manmade devices. > >>> Honestly Thomas: >>> This is mindless nonsense! >>> Are you inventing things as you go without considering >>> the consequences of your inventions? > >> You are just a hopelss case! > > This is sci.physics.relativity > > There are two theories of relativity, and your fantasies > have nothing to do with either of them. > > If you are not interested in relativity, don't post > to this ng. > > If you are interested in relativity, return to the real > world and respond to the following: > > "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's > paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and > "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's > paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", > are both logically consistent theories. > > Do you dispute this? > ==================== > > Both these theories of physics give precise predictions > for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Fortunately, even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit that the real measurement results have little in common with those insane delusions of a mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 11:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mo2vpjFte2qU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667338 |
Am Montag000017, 17.11.2025 um 20:53 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 17.11.2025 09:37, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> A model is a simplyfied representation of something. >>>> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make >>>> predictions. >>>> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some >>>> degree, because the model works upon entirely different principles >>>> than the real thing does. >>>> Therefore, we need to decide: >>>> do we want usability or precision? >>>> >>>> we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, because we want it >>>> that way. >>>> Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong and not we human >>>> beings. >>>> >>>> To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting >>>> principles, which nature actually uses. >>>> But we can't use the same principles in models, because such a model >>>> could not be computed and would take foreever to make any predictions. >>>> >>>> That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, >>>> if we want to describe, how nature functions. >>>> For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied >>>> approximations. >>>> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. >>>> 'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not created by >>>> men. >>>> This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. And our >>>> taks is, to find out, how this functions. >>>> If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest of >>>> tasks, because such tasks are actually related to manmade devices. > >>> Honestly Thomas: >>> This is mindless nonsense! >>> Are you inventing things as you go without considering >>> the consequences of your inventions? > >> You are just a hopelss case! > > This is sci.physics.relativity > > There are two theories of relativity, and your fantasies > have nothing to do with either of them. > > If you are not interested in relativity, don't post > to this ng. > > If you are interested in relativity, return to the real > world and respond to the following: > > "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's > paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and > "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's > paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", > are both logically consistent theories. > > Do you dispute this? > ==================== I have conducted an extensive study of Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. I found hundreds of errors in it and regard that particular article therefore as a piece of crap. It is so insanely bad, that it will be hard to defend it somehow. The physical content is therefore irrelevant and wasn't discussed by me. I regard relativity per se as mainly correct and argue only about the quality of Einstein's paper. > Both these theories of physics give precise predictions > for what will be measured in well defined experiments. > > Do you dispute this? > ==================== I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that model attempts to model. This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct something extremely stupid. That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9P4TQ.23782$Uyd1.9573@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667346 |
Den 18.11.2025 11:29, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Montag000017, 17.11.2025 um 20:53 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> If you are interested in relativity, return to the real >> world and respond to the following: >> >> "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's >> paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and >> "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's >> paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", >> are both logically consistent theories. >> >> Do you dispute this? >> ==================== > > I have conducted an extensive study of Einstein's text 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > I found hundreds of errors in it and regard that particular article > therefore as a piece of crap. > > It is so insanely bad, that it will be hard to defend it somehow. > > The physical content is therefore irrelevant and wasn't discussed by me. > > I regard relativity per se as mainly correct and argue only about the > quality of Einstein's paper. Repeating your opinion of SR/GR is no refutation. SR is pretty well defined by the Lorentz transform (LT): Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') The axes are paralell, x with x', y with y' etc. The origin of K' is moving along the postive x-axis with the speed v. c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²) x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t) y' = y z' = z t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²) x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t') y = y' z = z' You can prove SR inconsitent by showing that the LT is inconsistent. With math, not words! Can you do that? >> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >> >> Do you dispute this? >> ==================== > > I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that model > attempts to model. > > This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. > > If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct something > extremely stupid. > > That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Here are a few examples of the predictions: https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf But the fact that SR and GR give precise predictions doesn't prove that the predictions are in accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that. For a vast number of experiments the predictions of SR and GR are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements. Do you dispute this? ==================== You can see some of these experiment here: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Now you can explain why theories wich are "total nonsense". can give predictions which are confirmed to be correct. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18793561713a944d$7124745$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667352 |
On 11/18/2025 9:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.11.2025 11:29, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000017, 17.11.2025 um 20:53 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> If you are interested in relativity, return to the real >>> world and respond to the following: >>> >>> "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's >>> paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and >>> "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's >>> paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", >>> are both logically consistent theories. >>> >>> Do you dispute this? >>> ==================== >> >> I have conducted an extensive study of Einstein's text 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >> >> I found hundreds of errors in it and regard that particular article >> therefore as a piece of crap. >> >> It is so insanely bad, that it will be hard to defend it somehow. >> >> The physical content is therefore irrelevant and wasn't discussed by me. >> >> I regard relativity per se as mainly correct and argue only about the >> quality of Einstein's paper. > > Repeating your opinion of SR/GR is no refutation. > > SR is pretty well defined by the Lorentz transform (LT): > > Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') > The axes are paralell, x with x', y with y' etc. > The origin of K' is moving along the postive x-axis with > the speed v. > > c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) > > t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²) > x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t) > y' = y > z' = z > > t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²) > x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t') > y = y' > z = z' > > You can prove SR inconsitent by showing that the LT > is inconsistent. > > With math, not words! > > Can you do that? > >>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>> >>> Do you dispute this? >>> ==================== > >> >> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that model >> attempts to model. >> >> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >> >> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >> something extremely stupid. >> >> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. > > Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. > > It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise > predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. > > Here are a few examples of the predictions: > https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf > > But the fact that SR and GR give precise predictions > doesn't prove that the predictions are in accordance with > measurements. Only real experiments can do that. Fortunately - even such disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, sp sometimes you admit that the real measurement results have little in common with those moronic delusions of a mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <moatsnFalgeU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667352 |
Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: ... > >>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>> >>> Do you dispute this? >>> ==================== > >> >> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that model >> attempts to model. >> >> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >> >> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >> something extremely stupid. >> >> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. > > Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. > > It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise > predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Again: you are a hopeless case! You HAVE to distinguish between a model and the real world, even if the model is quite good. This is so, because model and real world 'live' in different domains. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web