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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <AS2UQ.273$tnG4.95@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667403 |
Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> 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. You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical model has nothing to do with the real world. Say, how ignorant is possible to be? Consider the following: The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in the GPS satellite will be: 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. See: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf This prediction is confirmed by real measurement in the real world: See: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf It is even better confirmed by 48 years service of GPS. This is an example where GR gives a precise prediction of what will be measured in the real world, and the prediction is confirmed to be in accordance with real measurements in the real world. Do you still claim that theories of physics can't give precise predictions of what will be measured in the real world? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 20:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a1bfcc444c512$23410278$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667409 |
On 11/21/2025 8:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> 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. > > You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions > of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical > model has nothing to do with the real world. > > Say, how ignorant is possible to be? > > Consider the following: > > The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, > that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. > > GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in > the GPS satellite will be: > 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, > that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. > > See: > https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf > > This prediction is confirmed by real measurement > in the real world: Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit: the real measurement result is 43082.045250000 and you're only imagining that it is 43082.045269235 s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 02:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rBsacOWvhP-f4ZqIl0oILJ678FU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667410 |
Le 21/11/2025 à 20:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > ... a disgusting piece of lying shit This is the BEST signature you've ever had Maciej!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 08:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a44057c1eba7d$23444503$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667413 |
On 11/22/2025 3:06 AM, Python wrote: > Le 21/11/2025 à 20:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> ... a disgusting piece of lying shit > > This is the BEST signature you've ever had Maciej! > > > And how is "select now()::interval"? I mean - how is it in sql, not how it is in sql_by_some_idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 08:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rGQVY7yl6U5C5UTHIaQhe8rJq3g@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667419 |
Le 22/11/2025 à 08:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 11/22/2025 3:06 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 21/11/2025 à 20:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> ... a disgusting piece of lying shit >> >> This is the BEST signature you've ever had Maciej! >> >> >> > > And how is "select now()::interval"? > I mean - how is it in sql, not how > it is in sql_by_some_idiot. :-)))))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ft0kn$nkpa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667410 |
Den 21.11.2025 20:22, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/21/2025 8:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Consider the following: >> >> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >> >> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >> the GPS satellite will be: >> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. >> >> See: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf >> >> This prediction is confirmed by real measurement >> in the real world: > > Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of > lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so > sometimes you admit: the real measurement result is > 43082.045250000 and you're only imagining that > it is 43082.045269235 s. > The real measurement result was 43082.045269065 s. See: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf In the test of the first GPS satellite in 1977 the clock in the satellite was initially not adjusted down. The rate of the clock in the satellite was during 6 days measured to be (1 + 4.425e-10) faster than the clock on the ground. See fig. 20. That's 19.064 μs more per orbit than the clock on the ground. This is slightly less than the 19.235 μs predicted by GR, but it is as can be expected by the precision of the atomic clock in the satellite, which was in the order of 1e-12. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 22:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a714a60cfb9d9$8075736$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667442 |
On 11/22/2025 7:50 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 21.11.2025 20:22, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/21/2025 8:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Consider the following: >>> >>> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >>> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >>> >>> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >>> the GPS satellite will be: >>> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >>> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. >>> >>> See: >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf >>> >>> This prediction is confirmed by real measurement >>> in the real world: > >> >> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of >> lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so >> sometimes you admit: the real measurement result is >> 43082.045250000 and you're only imagining that >> it is 43082.045269235 s. >> > > The real measurement result was 43082.045269065 s. No, it wasn't. You're admitting that GPS clocks don't measure your idiocies at all. > > See: > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf > > In the test of the first GPS satellite in 1977 the clock in the > satellite was initially not adjusted down. Sure, with/after proper calibrating the result is 43082.045250000. Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 22:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70l2ik1agk6912vvb8to4rh1krjgdebuae@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667409 |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 20:15:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> 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. > >You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions >of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical >model has nothing to do with the real world. > >Say, how ignorant is possible to be? > >Consider the following: > >The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. > >GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >the GPS satellite will be: > 43082.045250000?(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, > that is 19.235 ?s more than measured on the ground. > >See: >https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf > >This prediction is confirmed by real measurement >in the real world: >See: >https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf >It is even better confirmed by 48 years service of GPS. > > >This is an example where GR gives a precise prediction of what >will be measured in the real world, and the prediction is confirmed >to be in accordance with real measurements in the real world. > >Do you still claim that theories of physics can't give precise >predictions of what will be measured in the real world? To say: "This prediction is confirmed by real measurement in the real world:" is desperately trying to signal that they’re “empirical” or “grounded in reality”.. “BUT WE MEASURED IT, OKAY? WITH A REAL MACHINE!” It's comedy. a fucking joke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 09:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <modauaFmee2U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667409 |
Am Freitag000021, 21.11.2025 um 20:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> 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. > > You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions > of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical > model has nothing to do with the real world. No, I didn't say that. Of course models use all kinds of mathematics. But models are, nevertheless, different to what they model, . And even good models are still models (and NOT real). ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 12:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kUgUQ.3930$qGHb.693@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667423 |
Den 22.11.2025 09:41, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Freitag000021, 21.11.2025 um 20:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> 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. >> >> You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions >> of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical >> model has nothing to do with the real world. > No, I didn't say that. So you didn't say that theories of physics can't make precise predictions of what will be measured in the real world, you said that theories of physics can make precise predictions of what will be measured in the real world. Right? > > Of course models use all kinds of mathematics. But models are, > nevertheless, different to what they model, . > > And even good models are still models (and NOT real). Why are stating obvious trivialities in stead of addressing the issue? Please respond to the following: The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in the GPS satellite will be: 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. See: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf This prediction is confirmed by real measurement in the real world: See: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf It is even better confirmed by 48 years service of GPS. This is an example where GR gives a precise prediction of what will be measured in the real world, and the prediction is confirmed to be in accordance with real measurements in the real world. It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Do you still think that I am a hopeless case when I say: "It is an indisputable fact that GR give precise predictions for what will be measured in the real world"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a55b424fa5374$5361688$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667426 |
On 11/22/2025 12:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 09:41, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Freitag000021, 21.11.2025 um 20:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 21.11.2025 11:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> 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. >>> >>> You are claiming that theories of physics can't make predictions >>> of what will be measured in the real world, because a mathematical >>> model has nothing to do with the real world. > >> No, I didn't say that. > > So you didn't say that theories of physics can't make precise > predictions of what will be measured in the real world, you said > that theories of physics can make precise predictions of what > will be measured in the real world. Right? > >> >> Of course models use all kinds of mathematics. But models are, >> nevertheless, different to what they model, . >> >> And even good models are still models (and NOT real). > > Why are stating obvious trivialities in stead of > addressing the issue? > > Please respond to the following: > > > The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, > that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. > > GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in > the GPS satellite will be: > 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, > that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. The real result is, of course, 43082.045250000 (common sense has been warning) but it doesn't prevent the relativistic idiots from screaming CONFIRMED!!! CONFIRMED!!!! Fortunately, even they can't lie non stop. > > See: > https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf > > This prediction is confirmed by real measurement > in the real world: > See: > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf > > It is even better confirmed by 48 years service of GPS. > > > This is an example where GR gives a precise prediction of what > will be measured in the real world, and the prediction is confirmed > to be in accordance with real measurements in the real world. Nope, a brainwashed religious maniac simply lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 20:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ft1gs$nof9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667429 |
Den 22.11.2025 14:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/22/2025 12:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >> >> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >> the GPS satellite will be: >> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. > > > The real result is, of course, 43082.045250000 > (common sense has been warning) but it doesn't > prevent the relativistic idiots from screaming > CONFIRMED!!! CONFIRMED!!!! Fortunately, even > they can't lie non stop. > Nature doesn't obey your common sense. The real measurement was 43082.045269065 s. See: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf In the test of the first GPS satellite in 1977 the clock in the satellite was initially not adjusted down. The rate of the clock in the satellite was during 6 days measured to be (1 + 4.425e-10) faster than the clock on the ground. See fig. 20. That's 19.064 μs more per orbit than the clock on the ground. This is slightly less than the 19.235 μs predicted by GR, but it is as can be expected by the precision of the atomic clock in the satellite, which was in the order of 1e-12. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 22:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a716b92f2d025$5402942$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667443 |
On 11/22/2025 8:05 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 14:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/22/2025 12:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> >>> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >>> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >>> >>> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >>> the GPS satellite will be: >>> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >>> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. >> >> >> The real result is, of course, 43082.045250000 >> (common sense has been warning) but it doesn't >> prevent the relativistic idiots from screaming >> CONFIRMED!!! CONFIRMED!!!! Fortunately, even >> they can't lie non stop. >> > > Nature doesn't obey your common sense. But sane people doing the real, serious measurements (GPS staff) - do. > > The real measurement was 43082.045269065 s. Nope - a plain lie, as usual. > In the test of the first GPS satellite in 1977 the clock in the > satellite was initially not adjusted down. But after proper, careful calibration - the result is 43082.045250000.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fus0r$1c7km$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667450 |
Den 22.11.2025 22:28, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/22/2025 8:05 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 22.11.2025 14:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/22/2025 12:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >>>> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >>>> >>>> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >>>> the GPS satellite will be: >>>> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >>>> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. >>> >>> >>> The real result is, of course, 43082.045250000 >>> (common sense has been warning) but it doesn't >>> prevent the relativistic idiots from screaming >>> CONFIRMED!!! CONFIRMED!!!! Fortunately, even >>> they can't lie non stop. >>> >>> The real measurement was 43082.045269065 s. > Nope - a plain lie, as usual. You claim you can read, so read the paper: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf The title is: INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE The authors didn't care if Einstein was right or wrong, they did what they had to do to make the first GPS satellite work. Abstract: "NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12- hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect." The test was done by u.S.Naval Research Laboratory. They weren't sure if Einstein was right, that's why the satellite clock initially was running at its proper rate as defined by SI. The rate of the clock in the satellite was during 6 days measured to be (1 + 4.425e-10) faster than the clock on the ground. See fig. 20. That's 19.064 μs more per orbit than the clock on the ground. This is slightly less than the 19.235 μs predicted by GR, but it is as can be expected by the precision of the atomic clock in the satellite, which was in the order of 1e-12. But their job was to make the GPS work, so after it was confirmed that Einstein was right, they switched on the frequency synthesiser which adjusted the frequency down by the factor (1 - 4.45e-10). (Later the factor was changed to (1 - 4.4647e-10). -------------------- You will of course claim that all this is a lie, Einstein was wrong, so the unadjusted clock measured the same duration of an orbit as did the clock on the ground, so no adjustment of the rate of GPS clocks is done. You claim that the GPS satellite clocks are adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10). So you have a problem, Maciej. Either Einstein was wrong, and you lied when you said that the clocks were adjusted down, or Einstein was right, and you were right when you said that the clocks were adjusted down. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 13:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187aa348ea955936$8076776$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667463 |
On 11/23/2025 12:44 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 22:28, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/22/2025 8:05 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.11.2025 14:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/22/2025 12:13 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, >>>>> that is 43082.045250000 s measured by a clock on the geoid. >>>>> >>>>> GR predicts that the orbital time measured by a clock in >>>>> the GPS satellite will be: >>>>> 43082.045250000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 43082.045269235 s, >>>>> that is 19.235 μs more than measured on the ground. >>>> >>>> >>>> The real result is, of course, 43082.045250000 >>>> (common sense has been warning) but it doesn't >>>> prevent the relativistic idiots from screaming >>>> CONFIRMED!!! CONFIRMED!!!! Fortunately, even >>>> they can't lie non stop. >>>> >>>> The real measurement was 43082.045269065 s. > >> Nope - a plain lie, as usual. > > You claim you can read, so read the paper: > >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf A read lie is still a lie, sorry, poor trash. > > The title is: > INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE > > The authors didn't care if Einstein was right or wrong, A plain lie, as usual. > You will of course claim that all this is a lie, > Einstein was wrong, so the unadjusted clock measured > the same duration of an orbit as did the clock on the ground, > so no adjustment of the rate of GPS clocks is done. slander /ˈslɑːndə/ nounLaw the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. And an obvious choice of a relativistic trash when cornered. > > You claim that the GPS satellite clocks are adjusted down > by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10). > > So you have a problem, Maciej. Nope. A delusion, this time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8iRyYwpJ-UxOvpZxZaOJNxxoum8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667403 |
Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : > 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! Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. Says the one who still missed that the "delay" of light propagation is taken into account in Einstein's paper, even after people have a blue tongue. > 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. Sure. You are right here. But... Models live in a mathematical world and produce numbers. In the real world engineers build measurement devices that produce numbers. What could prevent the rest of us to compare these sets of numbers? You ? Maciej Wozniak ? Richard Hachel ? Jacques Lavau ? The Pope ? You won't obey your idiotic decrees. You, Maciej and other cranks will die. Science will not. We don't care about your opinionated views. We did what we've done, we still do, and we will do it again. On your graves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <modbgbFmee2U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667414 |
Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: > Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> 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! > > Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every single word or equation in it. I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could ask me everthing about it. Unfortunately this is only one paper, which I have analyzed that carefully. But still I think, that this text is just terrible crap. It is filled with errors of all kinds. Some of these errors are also extremely stupid. And most of my arguments are hard to reject, if you don't want to makle a fool out of yourself. > > Says the one who still missed that the "delay" of light propagation is > taken into account in Einstein's paper, even after people have a blue > tongue. The very word 'delay' is entirely missing in that paper. Also the treatment of something equivalent cannot be found. Another phrase entirely missing is - for instance- 'wavelength'. >> 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. > > Sure. You are right here. But... > > Models live in a mathematical world and produce numbers. Sure, but natur does not use numbers (humans do). > In the real world engineers build measurement devices that produce numbers. Physics and engineering are not the same thing. As an engineer from education I can assure you, that engineers never confuse models and the real world. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 13:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MWhUQ.8528$q0T.1130@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667424 |
Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: >> Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> ... >>>> >>>> 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! >> >> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper >> on SR. > > I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every > single word or equation in it. > > I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could > ask me everthing about it. OK. Q1: Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. The origin of K' is moving along the positive 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' Q2: Have you understood that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? Q4: Have you understood that all predictions of SR can be derived from the LT? Q5: Have you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? Some tests of SR: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf Facts: "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" is a logically consistent theory which make precise predictions for what will be measured in the real world, and many of these predictions are proved to be in accordance with the measurements, and no prediction of SR is proven wrong. Q6: Do you understand that these facts make it rather stupid to claim that the theory defined in Einstein's paper is "terrible crap"? > > Unfortunately this is only one paper, which I have analyzed that carefully. > > But still I think, that this text is just terrible crap. > > It is filled with errors of all kinds. > > Some of these errors are also extremely stupid. Q7: Which argument of yours are you referring to when you say: > And most of my arguments are hard to reject, if you don't want to makle a fool out of yourself. ? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 14:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a55d2400dd459$8026628$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667428 |
On 11/22/2025 1:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: >>> Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> 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! >>> >>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper >>> on SR. >> >> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >> single word or equation in it. >> >> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you >> could ask me everthing about it. > OK. > > Q1: > Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) > can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? > > Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') > The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. > The origin of K' is moving along the positive 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' > > Q2: > Have you understood that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? > > Q4: > Have you understood that all predictions of SR can be derived from > the LT? > > Q5: > Have you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed > to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? > > Some tests of SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > > Facts: Facts: even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop, so sometimes he admits that the real measurement results have little in common with those insane delusions of a mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fvqoj$1mm2b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667430 |
Den 22.11.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > Facts: even such a disgusting piece of lying > shit as Paul is can't lie non stop, so sometimes > he admits that the real measurement results have > little in common with those insane delusions > of a mumbling idiot. > If you address nothing in the post you are responding to, don't! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web