Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-07 19:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-07 19:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-08 19:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 07:08 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 15:00 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-09 06:19 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 22:05 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 21:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 22:40 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-10 19:09 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-10 15:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 16:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 15:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:05 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:08 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:43 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:54 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:08 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 12:37 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 15:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:02 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 15:13 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:23 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:01 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:24 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:56 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 18:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 16:34 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:48 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 14:46 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:03 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 15:28 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:39 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 16:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 14:48 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 17:30 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 15:39 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:23 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 16:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 08:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 12:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:32 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 15:02 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 18:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:38 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 20:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-15 20:33 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 06:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 12:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 13:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 16:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:57 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 23:10 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:34 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:29 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 22:47 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 23:35 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:40 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:45 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-16 22:52 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 14:40 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 18:19 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:33 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-15 10:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:22 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 17:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:16 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 08:56 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-16 08:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lowen Chukhnov <enuh@hlclk.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:54 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Shea Lupov <alell@eus.ru> - 2026-08-14 16:26 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:29 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 06:58 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:37 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:55 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 18:23 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 01:59 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Torre Kaczka <rz@oktreka.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 14:00 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Clayburn Ruzanov <nuc@braonala.ru> - 2026-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 22:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-12 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 21:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 19:21 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:12 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 18:17 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 23:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:19 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 20:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-11 10:53 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 12:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Peter Balagurov <pvaepgt@eaatp.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Elwood Bahtov <lehtb@oato.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <115o54d$2temf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672045 |
Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>> I know that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> You keep repeating >>>>> >>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>> >>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>> engineer, >>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>> >>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>> >>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>> >>>>> 10 us, >>>>> 10 ms, >>>>> or 10 s. >>>>> >>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. >>>>> >>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>> resynchronized. >>>>> >>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>> >>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>> > >>>> > They are not "broken". >>>> >>>> >>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>> is asserting, sure. >>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>> >>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>> >>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >> >>> >>> No, they do not. >> >> No, they do not. Why would they? >> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >> like the engineers assumed they should. >> >> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >> however. > > Maciej, > > Thank you. > > This is actually progress. > > A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite > clocks "broken." > > Now you say something different. > > You write: > > "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." > > Exactly. > > That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. > > It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. > > In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that > > not synchronized => broken. > > Because if the clocks naturally drift away from t'=t and are then > corrected back to t'=t, they are not broken. > > They are simply being synchronized. > > That is exactly how every distributed timing system works. > > More importantly, you still have not answered the central question. > > How does GPS know what correction to apply? > > The answer cannot be > > "because we want t'=t." > > That is merely the objective. No no, I consider this backwards motion. The equation should be t_0 = t_1. The apostrophe is reserved to show the derivative, that is the velocity of time. t' is the rate at which time is increasing = 1 second per second. It should not be equal to the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neanl9F315rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #672030 |
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>> .. >>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>> relativity. >>>>> >>>>> Very well. >>>>> >>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>> >>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>> >>>>> Or you do not. >>>> >>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>> postulates]? >>>> >>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>> equations >>>>> or predictions. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>> >>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>> >>> You keep contrasting >>> >>> "identical clocks" >>> >>> with >>> >>> "synchronized clocks" >>> >>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>> >>> They are not. >> >> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >> He was an idiot but he was right in that. > > In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. > > You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks > are equivalent. Usually 'identity' means, that the items are one and the same. IOW: you are only identical with yourself. What you mean is 'similarity'. > > Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining > how to synchronize clocks? Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present state, but in a state some time before. The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and not what the remote clock does. If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks run backwards after a while. To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called 'ping' in the internet. But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. TH > If they were already synchronized by virtue of being identical, that > section would have been unnecessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g6XeRhISD8oB8yBZtmuLVtjXmVs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672056 |
Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
..
>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>> how to synchronize clocks?
>
>
> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate the
> delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>
> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
> state, but in a state some time before.
>
> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>
> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some remote
> clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and not what
> the remote clock does.
>
> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks run
> backwards after a while.
>
> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>
> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
> 'ping' in the internet.
>
> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
"If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
The 1905 construction is not
"look at B and read its current time."
It is
1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
(tA1 + tA2)/2.
This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
It is using the measured round-trip propagation time to define
simultaneity.
In modern terminology, this is exactly a two-way time-transfer protocol.
It is conceptually very similar to what computer scientists know as a
ping.
So your statement
"Einstein didn't calculate the delay"
is simply incorrect.
The delay is the whole point of the construction.
You also write that one must "measure the delay by hand."
But the round-trip measurement
tA2 - tA1
IS precisely that measurement.
Nothing has been forgotten.
Finally, you write that otherwise "both clocks would run backwards."
No.
Nothing in Einstein's synchronization procedure predicts clocks running
backwards.
If you believe it does, then please provide the calculation.
Which equations lead to that conclusion?
Because neither Einstein's paper nor the Lorentz transformations produce
such a result.
Ironically, what you call
"a process similar to ping"
is essentially what Einstein proposed in 1905.
The idea is more than a century old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 14:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbf95f36546cac$2033805$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. "His" synchronization procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. God only knows wby the idiot bothered before announcing that synchronization is evil and should be abandoned, because it violates some moronic symmetry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZHy-L09ybuiXhvUyF8SUnw1xCpU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672058 |
Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>> ..
>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>
>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>
>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
>>> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>
>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
>>> not what the remote clock does.
>>>
>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
>>> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
>>> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
>>> run backwards after a while.
>>>
>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>
>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>
>> You write:
>>
>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>
>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>> that propagation delay.
>
> "His" synchronization procedure
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
>
> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
> announcing that synchronization is evil
> and should be abandoned, because it violates
> some moronic symmetry.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually another interesting concession.
You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used
by telegraphers.
Exactly.
Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's
invention.
In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of
distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for
railways, telegraph networks and geodesy.
Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions.
As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the
synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway
stations using telegraphic signals.
So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before
Einstein.
But that completely misses Einstein's contribution.
Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals.
He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of
coordinate time.
That is a completely different achievement.
Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there
already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce.
After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an
inertial reference frame.
The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick.
It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates.
That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary.
Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather
than refutes him.
And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days.
You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd,
unusable and abandoned.
Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used
successfully by engineers before Einstein.
Those two claims cannot both be true.
Finally, there is another irony.
As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the
difference between
implementing a protocol
and
defining the semantics of the protocol.
Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol.
Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the
foundation of coordinate time.
Those are not the same contribution.
Since, by your own admission, you like speaking of "opening one's
muzzle", perhaps you were not in the best position to open yours yet
again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 17:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc05d606ac19c3$2033822$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672059 |
On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>> .. >>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>> >>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >>>> state, but in a state some time before. >>>> >>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>> >>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>> >>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>> >>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>> >>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >>>> 'ping' in the internet. >>>> >>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>> >>> Thomas, >>> >>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>> >>> You write: >>> >>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>> >>> Of course. >>> >>> Nobody disputes that. >>> >>> Einstein certainly did not. >>> >>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for >>> that propagation delay. >> >> "His" synchronization procedure >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >> >> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >> announcing that synchronization is evil >> and should be abandoned, because it violates >> some moronic symmetry. > > Maciej, > > Thank you. > > This is actually another interesting concession. > > You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used > by telegraphers. > > Exactly. > > Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's > invention. > > In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of > distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for > railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. > > Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. > > As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the > synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway > stations using telegraphic signals. > > So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before > Einstein. > > But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. > > Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. > > He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of > coordinate time. > > That is a completely different achievement. > > Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there > already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. > > After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an > inertial reference frame. > > The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. > > It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. > > That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary. > > Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather > than refutes him. > > And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. > > You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, > unusable and abandoned. > > Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used > successfully by engineers before Einstein. > > Those two claims cannot both be true. > > Finally, there is another irony. > > As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the > difference between > > implementing a protocol > > and > > defining the semantics of the protocol. > > Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. > > Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the > foundation of coordinate time. ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <BOydndX0G8yuDB33nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672063 |
On 08/15/2026 08:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>>> .. >>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to >>>>>> defining >>>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't >>>>> calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>>> >>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its >>>>> present state, but in a state some time before. >>>>> >>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>>> >>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>>> >>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' >>>>> into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>>> >>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is >>>>> called 'ping' in the internet. >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>>> >>>> Thomas, >>>> >>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>>> >>>> You write: >>>> >>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>>> >>>> Of course. >>>> >>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>> >>>> Einstein certainly did not. >>>> >>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate >>>> for >>>> that propagation delay. >>> >>> "His" synchronization procedure >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >>> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >>> >>> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >>> announcing that synchronization is evil >>> and should be abandoned, because it violates >>> some moronic symmetry. >> >> Maciej, >> >> Thank you. >> >> This is actually another interesting concession. >> >> You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used >> by telegraphers. >> >> Exactly. >> >> Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's >> invention. >> >> In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of >> distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for >> railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. >> >> Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. >> >> As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the >> synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway >> stations using telegraphic signals. >> >> So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before >> Einstein. >> >> But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. >> >> Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. >> >> He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of >> coordinate time. >> >> That is a completely different achievement. >> >> Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there >> already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. >> >> After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an >> inertial reference frame. >> >> The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. >> >> It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. >> >> That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary. >> >> Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather >> than refutes him. >> >> And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. >> >> You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, >> unusable and abandoned. >> >> Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used >> successfully by engineers before Einstein. >> >> Those two claims cannot both be true. >> >> Finally, there is another irony. >> >> As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the >> difference between >> >> implementing a protocol >> >> and >> >> defining the semantics of the protocol. >> >> Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. >> >> Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the >> foundation of coordinate time. > > ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt. > There was a perfectly good account of the telegrapher's equation, held up by the greatest minds of the day, and it was wrong, and the submarine cable they sank was a folly, then Heaviside's telegrapher's equation, which he told them was correct all along, was adopted since it was less wrong, so, Einstein following Maxwell, yet Heaviside actually being right about these things, has that Einstein just keeps things simple, sometimes too simple. Then, Einstein's actual account is much simpler that what's often contrived from it, yet that's not all on him, since it's basically a hodge-podge of all what came before. Indeed, Heaviside and FitzGerald and Larmour are great 19'th century electricians, since Faraday and quite after Ampere and Coulomb and so on, each of which have their own "laws" of electricity, that don't necessarily agree with otherwise the "fluid" model of electricity, that Maxwell's then Ohm's and Kirchhoff's "laws" of circuits, provide for neat closed forms in arithmetic, algebra, and some trigonometry (which then complex analysis sits on). Calling that itself a closed form is unfair to the overall nature of the form of the energy, the real "law".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <GqOcncVF2-p3Dh33nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672064 |
On 08/15/2026 09:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/15/2026 08:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>>>> .. >>>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to >>>>>>> defining >>>>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't >>>>>> calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its >>>>>> present state, but in a state some time before. >>>>>> >>>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>>>> >>>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' >>>>>> into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>>>> >>>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is >>>>>> called 'ping' in the internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas, >>>>> >>>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>>>> >>>>> You write: >>>>> >>>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>>>> >>>>> Of course. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein certainly did not. >>>>> >>>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate >>>>> for >>>>> that propagation delay. >>>> >>>> "His" synchronization procedure >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >>>> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >>>> >>>> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >>>> announcing that synchronization is evil >>>> and should be abandoned, because it violates >>>> some moronic symmetry. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> This is actually another interesting concession. >>> >>> You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used >>> by telegraphers. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>> Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's >>> invention. >>> >>> In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of >>> distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for >>> railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. >>> >>> Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. >>> >>> As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the >>> synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway >>> stations using telegraphic signals. >>> >>> So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before >>> Einstein. >>> >>> But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. >>> >>> Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. >>> >>> He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of >>> coordinate time. >>> >>> That is a completely different achievement. >>> >>> Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed >>> there >>> already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. >>> >>> After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an >>> inertial reference frame. >>> >>> The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. >>> >>> It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. >>> >>> That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper >>> revolutionary. >>> >>> Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather >>> than refutes him. >>> >>> And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. >>> >>> You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, >>> unusable and abandoned. >>> >>> Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been >>> used >>> successfully by engineers before Einstein. >>> >>> Those two claims cannot both be true. >>> >>> Finally, there is another irony. >>> >>> As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the >>> difference between >>> >>> implementing a protocol >>> >>> and >>> >>> defining the semantics of the protocol. >>> >>> Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. >>> >>> Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the >>> foundation of coordinate time. >> >> ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt. >> > > > There was a perfectly good account of the telegrapher's equation, > held up by the greatest minds of the day, and it was wrong, > and the submarine cable they sank was a folly, then Heaviside's > telegrapher's equation, which he told them was correct all along, > was adopted since it was less wrong, so, Einstein following Maxwell, > yet Heaviside actually being right about these things, has that > Einstein just keeps things simple, sometimes too simple. > > Then, Einstein's actual account is much simpler that what's often > contrived from it, yet that's not all on him, since it's basically > a hodge-podge of all what came before. > > > Indeed, Heaviside and FitzGerald and Larmour are great 19'th century > electricians, since Faraday and quite after Ampere and Coulomb and > so on, each of which have their own "laws" of electricity, that don't > necessarily agree with otherwise the "fluid" model of electricity, > that Maxwell's then Ohm's and Kirchhoff's "laws" of circuits, > provide for neat closed forms in arithmetic, algebra, and some > trigonometry (which then complex analysis sits on). > > Calling that itself a closed form is unfair to the overall > nature of the form of the energy, the real "law". > > So, the telegrapher's equation is not the best example of not being wrong, and then "complex analysis" is also more than "the deMoivre-Euler-Gauss branch of the way complex analysis is usually enough applied to functional analysis". That said, it's quite easier sometimes to live in a world of theory than practice, yet, from the theory side then for suitable practices, and from the practice side suitable theories, here it's deemed reasonable to at least have a perfect theory, then for the practice of theoretical practice and practical theory, the application of applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VaecncsRotkCER33nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
On 08/15/2026 04:18 AM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. > > The 1905 construction is not > > "look at B and read its current time." > > It is > > 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1. > > 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it. > > 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2. > > Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at > > (tA1 + tA2)/2. > > This is not forgetting the propagation delay. > > It is using the measured round-trip propagation time to define > simultaneity. > > In modern terminology, this is exactly a two-way time-transfer protocol. > > It is conceptually very similar to what computer scientists know as a > ping. > > So your statement > > "Einstein didn't calculate the delay" > > is simply incorrect. > > The delay is the whole point of the construction. > > You also write that one must "measure the delay by hand." > > But the round-trip measurement > > tA2 - tA1 > > IS precisely that measurement. > > Nothing has been forgotten. > > Finally, you write that otherwise "both clocks would run backwards." > > No. > > Nothing in Einstein's synchronization procedure predicts clocks running > backwards. > > If you believe it does, then please provide the calculation. > > Which equations lead to that conclusion? > > Because neither Einstein's paper nor the Lorentz transformations produce > such a result. > > Ironically, what you call > > "a process similar to ping" > > is essentially what Einstein proposed in 1905. > > The idea is more than a century old. > So, A's metric and norm are B's norm and metric, then Einstein just says "Ricci is a straight line, yet Riemann is the absence thereof, let's just call them tensors". Einstein doesn't care what actually "makes the tensors", in General Relativity, then usual acconts extrapolated from space-contraction in Special Relativity plainly say "the metric and norm aren't the same, and for matters of perspective, from one perspective, this might be what we'd see". Of course there's that "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local", Einstein says so in "Out of My Later Years", while many SR-ians don't know / don't care the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ned3v7FefegU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. > > The 1905 construction is not > > "look at B and read its current time." > > It is > > 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1. > > 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it. > > 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2. > > Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at > > (tA1 + tA2)/2. But this is WRONG! If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns. The reason: Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes, while the ray is still moving. And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'. > > This is not forgetting the propagation delay. Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable containing delay. Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q6xDrlkMDKWxrZL9kUX0ULU1K80@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672074 |
Le 16/08/2026 à 08:34, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python:
>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>> ..
>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>
>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>
>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
>>> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>
>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
>>> not what the remote clock does.
>>>
>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
>>> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
>>> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
>>> run backwards after a while.
>>>
>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>
>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>
>> You write:
>>
>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>
>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>> that propagation delay.
>>
>> The 1905 construction is not
>>
>> "look at B and read its current time."
>>
>> It is
>>
>> 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
>>
>> 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
>>
>> 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
>>
>> Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
>>
>> (tA1 + tA2)/2.
>
> But this is WRONG!
>
> If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not
> be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns.
>
>
> The reason:
>
> Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes, while
> the ray is still moving.
>
> And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'.
>
>>
>> This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
>
> Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable containing
> delay.
>
> Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and
> should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay.
>
> ...
>
> TH
Thomas,
You have changed the thought experiment.
Einstein's synchronization procedure is defined for two clocks at rest in
the same inertial frame.
You replaced that by
Earth
Mars
which are not at rest relative to each other.
Of course the simple synchronization construction no longer applies.
Nobody ever claimed that it should.
You are criticizing Einstein's procedure after removing one of its
fundamental hypotheses.
That is not a valid objection.
In Einstein's original notation, the procedure is the following.
Clock A sends a light signal when it reads
t_A.
Clock B receives the signal and immediately reflects it when it reads
t_B.
Clock A receives the reflected signal when it reads
t'_A.
Einstein then defines the clocks to be synchronized if
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B,
or equivalently,
t_B = (t_A + t'_A)/2.
Nothing has been forgotten here.
The entire construction is based on the finite propagation time of the
light signal.
If light propagation were instantaneous, there would be no need to
introduce the three times
t_A,
t_B,
t'_A
in the first place.
Your Mars example is a different problem.
Mars is moving with respect to Earth, so the distance between the
endpoints
changes while the signal is in flight.
Einstein's synchronization procedure is not intended for that situation.
Modern spacecraft tracking and radar ranging explicitly model the motion
of
the endpoints.
That is an extension of the problem, not a correction of Einstein's
procedure.
Finally, your linguistic argument is extraordinary.
You write that Einstein never used the word "delay", therefore he did not
take propagation time into account.
Scientific papers are interpreted from their mathematics, not by counting
the occurrences of particular words.
The quantities
t_A,
t_B,
t'_A
exist precisely because light takes time to propagate.
The propagation delay is not missing from the paper.
It is the entire reason the synchronization procedure exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lowen Chukhnov <enuh@hlclk.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115tbjf$1t61d$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #672074 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at >> >> (tA1 + tA2)/2. > > But this is WRONG! > > If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not > be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns. Catherine Austin Fitts： The People Plundering America Are The Same People Who Plundered Russia [WCITVgTMBLb9].mp4 https://www.bitchute.com/video/WCITVgTMBLb9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shea Lupov <alell@eus.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115nfjq$1k548$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #672029 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> You keep contrasting >> >> "identical clocks" >> >> with >> >> "synchronized clocks" >> >> as if they were mutually exclusive. >> >> They are not. > > Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. > He was an idiot but he was right in that. you are farting through your armchair. You can never synchronize anything, as that supposes distinct events
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <115o4sd$2temf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672027 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/08/2026 à 18:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 18:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 17:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 16:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 15:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 14:46, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 20:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 19:48, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 18:15, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's forget the SI second entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider two identical clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mope, i'm not going to your gedanken delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not interested the slightest in them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is precisely the problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A physical theory must be able to answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-defined thought experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad for physics. GPS, on the other hand, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have to, so it doesn't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either to your identical clocks or for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other of your moronic delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including your SI idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The twin paradox is one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm not interested in gedanken experiments" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is simply refusing to apply your ideas to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisely defined situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal cannot tell what two identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks will read after following different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines, then it is not yet a physical theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I guess a good theological theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should precisely answer whether angels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a pinhead will dance foxtrot or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can-can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, unfortunately, the clocks of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world are not identical, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never were and they are not going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be. You may check GPS if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not whether real clocks are perfectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist has ever claimed they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is much simpler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose two clocks are initially synchronized and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calibrated to realize the same unit, within arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Python, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the question is as it is in the subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for clocks - outside of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gedankenwelt they're different and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave differently. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one refused to discuss ideal clocks because real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are imperfect, one could not even write the GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's the real reason why your Shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pumping you with those tales of identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. After some time of being pumped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you start deeply believing they're normal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious and perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, they are not perfect. They're unusable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they're not obvious. Oppositely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you noticed that - your moronic religion has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never directly said clocks should be identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never, nowhere? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "moronic religion" being in your demented mind SR, let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me quote Albert Einstein: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> « If at the point A of space there is a clock, an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at A can determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at B to determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate neighbourhood of B. » >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note : "another clock in all respects resembling the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at A". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never really read this article, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes our "moronic religion" actually said directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks should be identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, it hasn't. The above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a perfect example of what I'm saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a tale where clocks are identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pumped with such tales you start believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious, natural and the only option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the idiot lived and mumbled - the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best clocks were pendulums. If the idiot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had some contact with the reality he could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notice that being identical doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to serve them well. But he had no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANS "identical", too. Instead, your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion has pumped you with some tales. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you know which clocks are "perfect". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can check GPS, your perfect differently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are perfectly unusable for serious measurements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it means nothing to a brainwashed religious maniac, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just confirmed what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein explicitly writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> tales of perfect identical clocks - until >>>>>>>>>>>>> you start believing they're really perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he is not claiming that every physical clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactured on Earth is perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is defining an ideal class of clocks suitable for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing a coordinate time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Now, having GPS, we know that his >>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal differently clocks are ideally >>>>>>>>>>>>> unusable for serious measurements - but >>>>>>>>>>>>> his brainwashed doggies don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what theoretical physics does. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's exactly what your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion does and always did. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually, however there was some sense in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Your idiot guru has made an exception. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist believes those objects literally exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep replacing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "assume two identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "all real clocks are identical." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, GPS does not help your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's, unfortunely, a plain, impudent lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they do. Sorry, since some incompetent >>>>>>>>>>>>> idiots are selling us unusable religious crap >>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to provide a model of our own. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We start from a postulate of "the clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t). >>>>>>>>>>>>> if they don't want to be- it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>>>>> [a perfectly classical phenomenon, well >>>>>>>>>>>>> known to Galileo and Newton and any 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years old child] and we have to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>> corrections." There is no way of >>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciling our postulate with The >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shit of Einstein. Sorry. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are added on top of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your objection were valid, it would invalidate not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity but virtually every theoretical model in physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, a bit yes. but not quite. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your objection is clearly not against idealization. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. The idealization performed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru was special. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock >>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>> and we have to apply corrections." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is indeed a postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it is not the postulate of special relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it is a postulate of the model applied in >>>>>>>>>>> GPS. They didn't apply your Shit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Surprise? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a factual claim, and it is simply false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it is not. You're a fanatic idiot, your >>>>>>>>> opinion - well, is worthless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> GPS does not start from the postulate >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> t' = t. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes it does. In GPS if clocks were >>>>>>>>> perfect they would be perfectly synchronized, >>>>>>>>> i.e. indicating perfect t'=t - wouldn't >>>>>>>>> they? >>>>>>>>> That's what they're trying to reach as >>>>>>>>> closely as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It starts from the opposite observation: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> left uncorrected, clocks on GPS satellites and clocks on Earth >>>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>> remain synchronized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That difference is not treated as a "clock error". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is predicted from the satellites' trajectories and the Earth's >>>>>>>>>> gravitational field. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not? Do you think an error can't be >>>>>>>>> predicted? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The engineering model then adds ordinary clock errors: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - oscillator instability, >>>>>>>>>> - ageing, >>>>>>>>>> - temperature, >>>>>>>>>> - electronic noise, >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those are genuine clock errors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Relativistic time offsets are not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as "relativistic time >>>>>>>>> offset" in GPS model, unfortunately. There is >>>>>>>>> just another error to deal with. By corrections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If they were merely "clock errors", they would be unpredictable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? >>>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- and- >>>>>>>>> examples/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> clock errors >>>>>>>>>> -> stochastic, hardware-dependent, estimated from >>>>>>>>>> measurements; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? Really? >>>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- and- >>>>>>>>> examples/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calling the second category "clock errors" does not change >>>>>>>>>> what they are. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More importantly, if GPS really assumed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> t' = t >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as a physical postulate, satellite clocks would remain >>>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>>> without relativistic corrections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Newton was definitely assuming t'=t. >>>>>>>>> Didn't he apply corrections to clocks? >>>>>>>>> Weren't those corrections predictable? >>>>>>>>> He had pendulums, you know... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the other hand - if they applied the >>>>>>>>> postulates of The Shit - the satellite >>>>>>>>> clocks wouldn't remain synchronized at >>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>> Isn't that, accidentally, a consequence >>>>>>>>> of the postulates of your insane guru - that >>>>>>>>> the clocks are not going to remain >>>>>>>>> synchronized in a situation like that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are still equivocating on the word "error". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course systematic errors exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But calling a physical effect an "error" does not make it cease >>>>>>>> to be a >>>>>>>> physical effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suppose I call gravity a "systematic ruler error". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Objects would still fall with acceleration g. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The equations would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The predictions would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only the vocabulary would have changed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same applies here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may call the relativistic frequency shift of GPS clocks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "a systematic clock error" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if you wish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it have precisely that magnitude? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it depend on the gravitational potential? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is >>>>>>>> launched? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>> orbit changes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A physical model answers those questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But GPS doesn't give a damn to brilliant >>>>>>> answers of your bunch of idiots. It just >>>>>>> NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates >>>>>>> that if they're not synchronized (i.e. they >>>>>>> are not indicating t'=t) - it's an error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Common sense has been warning the idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, GPS continuously maintains a common coordinate time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Heard of Occam's razor? If your local idiocy >>>>>>> is not needed it doesn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question is not what engineers WANT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question is why clocks naturally drift apart if no >>>>>>>> correction is >>>>>>>> applied. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pfffff. That's because they're clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling the drift a "clock error" does not explain it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you feel discomforted, poor idiot? >>>>>>> Nobody cares. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It merely gives it another name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's all about the names. Poincare has been trying >>>>>>> to explain that. Not that he understood much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More generally, you keep avoiding the questions that actually >>>>>>>> distinguish >>>>>>>> between competing theories. >>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which equations does your GPS model use to compute the >>>>>>>> satellite clock >>>>>>>> corrections? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of The Shit's equation have some value. >>>>>>> Why not? The most important of them were invented >>>>>>> by Maxwell and Lorentz anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Can you write those equations explicitly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which prediction of special relativity do those equations >>>>>>>> disagree >>>>>>>> with? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Python, poor trash, your Shit is based >>>>>>> on the Holiest Postulate. ANY frame >>>>>>> dependent correction is violating >>>>>>> its predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which experimental result is better explained by your >>>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>>> than by relativity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time is what clocks indicate, poor trash. >>>>>>> Sorry, the clocks indicate t'=t. If >>>>>>> your idiot guru ever understood what >>>>>>> clocks are and what they're for he >>>>>>> wouldn't fool your moronic religion so >>>>>>> much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those are scientific questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And engineers don't care about them >>>>>>> much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the first time, you are stating your position clearly. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say: >>>>>> >>>>>> "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if >>>>>> they're not >>>>>> synchronized, it's an error." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is exactly where we disagree. >>>>> >>>>> We disagree in almost exactly everything. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are confusing three completely different things. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The engineering objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> GPS wants all satellite clocks to realize the same coordinate time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The observed physical behaviour. >>>>>> >>>>>> Left to themselves, clocks on different worldlines do not remain >>>>>> synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> That depends on the details of their >>>>> construction. Your moronic religion >>>>> has persuaded you its mumble is guaranteed >>>>> by some unknown (but powerful) Higher Force >>>>> - and you're so stupid that you've bought it. >>>>> That's bullshit. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. The physical model. >>>>>> >>>>>> The purpose of the model is to predict exactly how and why those >>>>>> clocks >>>>>> drift apart, so that the engineering system can compensate for it. >>>>> >>>>> No. The purpose of the model is steering >>>>> your thinking and talking. >>>>> >>>>>> Calling the drift an "error" does not explain the drift. >>>>>> >>>>>> It merely states that you intend to correct it. >>>>> >>>>> That's, unfortunately, enough to know you >>>>> disobey those mad commands of your mad >>>>> guru. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Suppose I build an autopilot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its objective is to keep an aircraft on its intended course. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the aircraft is pushed sideways by a crosswind, the autopilot >>>>>> calls >>>>>> that a "tracking error". >>>>>> >>>>>> Fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the existence of the tracking error does not eliminate the wind. >>>>> >>>>> Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand - >>>>> eliminate bullshit about clocks not indicating >>>>> t'=t. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A specification does not predict anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> A physical theory does. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it can, for instance, predict that >>>>> a day compared to 1/86400 of itself is >>>>> going to be 99766. And then scream >>>>> CONFIRMED!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!". And >>>>> cast slanders and other shit at the >>>>> ones rotfling. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Engineers care about achieving synchronization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Physicists care about predicting what happens before >>>>>> synchronization is >>>>>> enforced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are complementary questions, not competing ones. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those are not. While: >>>>> "perfect clocks are identical clocks" >>>>> and >>>>> "perfect clocks are synchronized clocks" >>>>> are definitely competing. >>>> >>>> I asked you: >>>> >>>> Which equations does the GPS model use? >>>> >>>> You answered: >>>> >>>> "No" >>>> >>>> when asked to write them down. >>>> >>>> Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict >>>> special relativity. >>> >>> Well, Python is coming back to lies. No surprise. >>> >>> >>>> You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to >>>> state >>>> at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking. >>> >>> The Shit of Einstein predicts time, i.e. >>> what clocks indicate, to be frame dependent. >>> The GPS model assumes as a postulate the >>> clocks are going to indicate the same >>> in every frame. Feel free to see no >>> difference here, it's already known you're >>> an idiot. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Your position has now become: >>>> >>>> GPS uses a model different from relativity; >>>> >>>> you cannot write that model; >>> >>> A lie, of course, I've written one of its >>> postulates directly. You've admitted it is >>> not a postulate of your Shit. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Different clock technologies have different instrumental drifts. >>>> >>>> But the relativistic contribution has a very specific dependence on >>>> motion and gravitational potential. >>>> >>>> A physical model predicts that dependence. >>>> >>>> Calling everything a "clock error" merely changes the terminology. >>> >>> Unfortunately, that's enough. Poincare has been >>> trying to explain idiots like you that it's >>> all about terminology - but it was hopeless, and >>> anyway - he didn't understand much. >>> >>>> And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this. >>>> >>>> A systematic error is still characterized by a model: >>>> >>>> its sign, >>>> its magnitude, >>>> its dependence on parameters, >>>> and the correction to apply. >>>> >>>> So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic >>>> error, >>>> fine. >>>> >>>> Then write the equation for that systematic error. >>> >>> Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't >>> involved. >>> >>> >>>> You still have not provided an alternative model. >>> >>> GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing, >>> but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup. >> >> Maciej, >> >> You have now moved the burden of proof. >> >> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >> relativity. >> >> Very well. >> >> Then one of two things must be true. >> >> Either you know that model. >> >> Or you do not. > > How about - I know its part [one of the chief > postulates]? > > Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks > to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) > is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's > not the same and it is excluding each other. I guess I don't see the importance of this observation. Would it comfort you if the Gedanken experiment had two clocks which were ten seconds apart on time? Because it really shouldn't affect the outcome if this provision were provided. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8tWcnXoEsfyFguL3nZ2dnZfqn_Rg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672026 |
On 08/13/2026 04:57 PM, Python wrote: > Le 13/08/2026 à 18:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 13/08/2026 à 18:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 17:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 16:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 15:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 14:46, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 20:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 19:48, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 18:15, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's forget the SI second entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider two identical clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mope, i'm not going to your gedanken delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not interested the slightest in them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is precisely the problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A physical theory must be able to answer well-defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad for physics. GPS, on the other hand, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have to, so it doesn't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either to your identical clocks or for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other of your moronic delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including your SI idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The twin paradox is one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm not interested in gedanken experiments" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is simply refusing to apply your ideas to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisely defined situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal cannot tell what two identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks will read after following different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines, then it is not yet a physical theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I guess a good theological theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should precisely answer whether angels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a pinhead will dance foxtrot or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can-can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, unfortunately, the clocks of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world are not identical, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never were and they are not going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be. You may check GPS if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not whether real clocks are perfectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist has ever claimed they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is much simpler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose two clocks are initially synchronized and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calibrated to realize the same unit, within arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Python, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the question is as it is in the subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for clocks - outside of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gedankenwelt they're different and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave differently. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one refused to discuss ideal clocks because real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are imperfect, one could not even write the GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's the real reason why your Shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pumping you with those tales of identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. After some time of being pumped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you start deeply believing they're normal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious and perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, they are not perfect. They're unusable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they're not obvious. Oppositely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you noticed that - your moronic religion has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never directly said clocks should be identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never, nowhere? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "moronic religion" being in your demented mind SR, let me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote Albert Einstein: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> « If at the point A of space there is a clock, an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at A can determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at B to determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate neighbourhood of B. » >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note : "another clock in all respects resembling the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at A". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never really read this article, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes our "moronic religion" actually said directly that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks should be identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, it hasn't. The above >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a perfect example of what I'm saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a tale where clocks are identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pumped with such tales you start believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious, natural and the only option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the idiot lived and mumbled - the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> best clocks were pendulums. If the idiot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had some contact with the reality he could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> notice that being identical doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to serve them well. But he had no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANS "identical", too. Instead, your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion has pumped you with some tales. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you know which clocks are "perfect". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can check GPS, your perfect differently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are perfectly unusable for serious measurements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it means nothing to a brainwashed religious maniac, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just confirmed what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein explicitly writes >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the >>>>>>>>>>>> tales of perfect identical clocks - until >>>>>>>>>>>> you start believing they're really perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he is not claiming that every physical clock >>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactured on Earth is perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He is defining an ideal class of clocks suitable for >>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing a coordinate time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Now, having GPS, we know that his >>>>>>>>>>>> ideal differently clocks are ideally >>>>>>>>>>>> unusable for serious measurements - but >>>>>>>>>>>> his brainwashed doggies don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what theoretical physics does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's exactly what your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>> religion does and always did. >>>>>>>>>>>> Usually, however there was some sense in >>>>>>>>>>>> that. Your idiot guru has made an exception. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist believes those objects literally exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are models. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep replacing >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "assume two identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "all real clocks are identical." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, GPS does not help your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's, unfortunely, a plain, impudent lie. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>> physical model. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they do. Sorry, since some incompetent >>>>>>>>>>>> idiots are selling us unusable religious crap >>>>>>>>>>>> we have to provide a model of our own. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We start from a postulate of "the clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>> to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t). >>>>>>>>>>>> if they don't want to be- it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>>>> [a perfectly classical phenomenon, well >>>>>>>>>>>> known to Galileo and Newton and any 10 >>>>>>>>>>>> years old child] and we have to apply >>>>>>>>>>>> corrections." There is no way of >>>>>>>>>>>> reconciling our postulate with The >>>>>>>>>>>> Shit of Einstein. Sorry. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are added on top of it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your objection were valid, it would invalidate not only >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity but virtually every theoretical model in physics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, a bit yes. but not quite. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So your objection is clearly not against idealization. >>>>>>>>>>>> > It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right. The idealization performed by >>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru was special. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>>> and we have to apply corrections." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is indeed a postulate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it is not the postulate of special relativity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But it is a postulate of the model applied in >>>>>>>>>> GPS. They didn't apply your Shit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Surprise? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a factual claim, and it is simply false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it is not. You're a fanatic idiot, your >>>>>>>> opinion - well, is worthless. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GPS does not start from the postulate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> t' = t. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes it does. In GPS if clocks were >>>>>>>> perfect they would be perfectly synchronized, >>>>>>>> i.e. indicating perfect t'=t - wouldn't >>>>>>>> they? >>>>>>>> That's what they're trying to reach as >>>>>>>> closely as possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It starts from the opposite observation: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> left uncorrected, clocks on GPS satellites and clocks on Earth >>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>> remain synchronized. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That difference is not treated as a "clock error". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is predicted from the satellites' trajectories and the Earth's >>>>>>>>> gravitational field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not? Do you think an error can't be >>>>>>>> predicted? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The engineering model then adds ordinary clock errors: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - oscillator instability, >>>>>>>>> - ageing, >>>>>>>>> - temperature, >>>>>>>>> - electronic noise, >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those are genuine clock errors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Relativistic time offsets are not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no such thing as "relativistic time >>>>>>>> offset" in GPS model, unfortunately. There is >>>>>>>> just another error to deal with. By corrections. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If they were merely "clock errors", they would be unpredictable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? >>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>> and- examples/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> clock errors >>>>>>>>> -> stochastic, hardware-dependent, estimated from >>>>>>>>> measurements; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? Really? >>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>> and- examples/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling the second category "clock errors" does not change what >>>>>>>>> they are. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More importantly, if GPS really assumed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> t' = t >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as a physical postulate, satellite clocks would remain >>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>> without relativistic corrections. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton was definitely assuming t'=t. >>>>>>>> Didn't he apply corrections to clocks? >>>>>>>> Weren't those corrections predictable? >>>>>>>> He had pendulums, you know... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the other hand - if they applied the >>>>>>>> postulates of The Shit - the satellite >>>>>>>> clocks wouldn't remain synchronized at >>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>> Isn't that, accidentally, a consequence >>>>>>>> of the postulates of your insane guru - that >>>>>>>> the clocks are not going to remain >>>>>>>> synchronized in a situation like that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are still equivocating on the word "error". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course systematic errors exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But calling a physical effect an "error" does not make it cease >>>>>>> to be a >>>>>>> physical effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose I call gravity a "systematic ruler error". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Objects would still fall with acceleration g. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The equations would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The predictions would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only the vocabulary would have changed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same applies here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may call the relativistic frequency shift of GPS clocks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "a systematic clock error" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if you wish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does it have precisely that magnitude? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does it depend on the gravitational potential? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>>> when the >>>>>>> orbit changes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A physical model answers those questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> But GPS doesn't give a damn to brilliant >>>>>> answers of your bunch of idiots. It just >>>>>> NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates >>>>>> that if they're not synchronized (i.e. they >>>>>> are not indicating t'=t) - it's an error. >>>>>> >>>>>> Common sense has been warning the idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, GPS continuously maintains a common coordinate time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Heard of Occam's razor? If your local idiocy >>>>>> is not needed it doesn't exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The question is not what engineers WANT. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The question is why clocks naturally drift apart if no correction is >>>>>>> applied. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pfffff. That's because they're clocks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling the drift a "clock error" does not explain it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you feel discomforted, poor idiot? >>>>>> Nobody cares. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It merely gives it another name. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's all about the names. Poincare has been trying >>>>>> to explain that. Not that he understood much. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> More generally, you keep avoiding the questions that actually >>>>>>> distinguish >>>>>>> between competing theories. >>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Which equations does your GPS model use to compute the >>>>>>> satellite clock >>>>>>> corrections? >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of The Shit's equation have some value. >>>>>> Why not? The most important of them were invented >>>>>> by Maxwell and Lorentz anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Can you write those equations explicitly? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Which prediction of special relativity do those equations disagree >>>>>>> with? >>>>>> >>>>>> Python, poor trash, your Shit is based >>>>>> on the Holiest Postulate. ANY frame >>>>>> dependent correction is violating >>>>>> its predictions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Which experimental result is better explained by your >>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>> than by relativity? >>>>>> >>>>>> Time is what clocks indicate, poor trash. >>>>>> Sorry, the clocks indicate t'=t. If >>>>>> your idiot guru ever understood what >>>>>> clocks are and what they're for he >>>>>> wouldn't fool your moronic religion so >>>>>> much. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Those are scientific questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> And engineers don't care about them >>>>>> much. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> For the first time, you are stating your position clearly. >>>>> >>>>> You say: >>>>> >>>>> "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if >>>>> they're not >>>>> synchronized, it's an error." >>>>> >>>>> This is exactly where we disagree. >>>> >>>> We disagree in almost exactly everything. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are confusing three completely different things. >>>>> >>>>> 1. The engineering objective. >>>>> >>>>> GPS wants all satellite clocks to realize the same coordinate time. >>>>> >>>>> Of course. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The observed physical behaviour. >>>>> >>>>> Left to themselves, clocks on different worldlines do not remain >>>>> synchronized. >>>> >>>> That depends on the details of their >>>> construction. Your moronic religion >>>> has persuaded you its mumble is guaranteed >>>> by some unknown (but powerful) Higher Force >>>> - and you're so stupid that you've bought it. >>>> That's bullshit. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. The physical model. >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of the model is to predict exactly how and why those >>>>> clocks >>>>> drift apart, so that the engineering system can compensate for it. >>>> >>>> No. The purpose of the model is steering >>>> your thinking and talking. >>>> >>>>> Calling the drift an "error" does not explain the drift. >>>>> >>>>> It merely states that you intend to correct it. >>>> >>>> That's, unfortunately, enough to know you >>>> disobey those mad commands of your mad >>>> guru. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Suppose I build an autopilot. >>>>> >>>>> Its objective is to keep an aircraft on its intended course. >>>>> >>>>> If the aircraft is pushed sideways by a crosswind, the autopilot calls >>>>> that a "tracking error". >>>>> >>>>> Fine. >>>>> >>>>> But the existence of the tracking error does not eliminate the wind. >>>> >>>> Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand - >>>> eliminate bullshit about clocks not indicating >>>> t'=t. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> A specification does not predict anything. >>>>> >>>>> A physical theory does. >>>> >>>> Sure, it can, for instance, predict that >>>> a day compared to 1/86400 of itself is >>>> going to be 99766. And then scream >>>> CONFIRMED!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!". And >>>> cast slanders and other shit at the >>>> ones rotfling. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Engineers care about achieving synchronization. >>>>> >>>>> Physicists care about predicting what happens before >>>>> synchronization is >>>>> enforced. >>>>> >>>>> Those are complementary questions, not competing ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> Those are not. While: >>>> "perfect clocks are identical clocks" >>>> and >>>> "perfect clocks are synchronized clocks" >>>> are definitely competing. >>> >>> I asked you: >>> >>> Which equations does the GPS model use? >>> >>> You answered: >>> >>> "No" >>> >>> when asked to write them down. >>> >>> Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict >>> special relativity. >> >> Well, Python is coming back to lies. No surprise. >> >> >>> You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to >>> state >>> at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking. >> >> The Shit of Einstein predicts time, i.e. >> what clocks indicate, to be frame dependent. >> The GPS model assumes as a postulate the >> clocks are going to indicate the same >> in every frame. Feel free to see no >> difference here, it's already known you're >> an idiot. >> >> >> >>> Your position has now become: >>> >>> GPS uses a model different from relativity; >>> >>> you cannot write that model; >> >> A lie, of course, I've written one of its >> postulates directly. You've admitted it is >> not a postulate of your Shit. >> >> >>> >>> Different clock technologies have different instrumental drifts. >>> >>> But the relativistic contribution has a very specific dependence on >>> motion and gravitational potential. >>> >>> A physical model predicts that dependence. >>> >>> Calling everything a "clock error" merely changes the terminology. >> >> Unfortunately, that's enough. Poincare has been >> trying to explain idiots like you that it's >> all about terminology - but it was hopeless, and >> anyway - he didn't understand much. >> >>> And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this. >>> >>> A systematic error is still characterized by a model: >>> >>> its sign, >>> its magnitude, >>> its dependence on parameters, >>> and the correction to apply. >>> >>> So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic error, >>> fine. >>> >>> Then write the equation for that systematic error. >> >> Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't >> involved. >> >> >>> You still have not provided an alternative model. >> >> GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing, >> but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup. > > Maciej, > > You have now moved the burden of proof. > > You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special > relativity. > > Very well. > > Then one of two things must be true. > > Either you know that model. > > Or you do not. > > If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations > or predictions. > > If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it > contradicts relativity. > > Simply saying > > "GPS has provided it" > > is not an argument. > > I could equally write > > "Somebody has another theory." > > That says nothing until the theory is stated. > > Notice that I have never asked you to derive the GPS model yourself. > > I only asked a much simpler question: > > Which equations does it use? > > You answered that you could not write them. > > Then, a few lines later, you nevertheless asserted that those unknown > equations contradict special relativity. > > That conclusion simply does not follow. > > More importantly, you still avoid the essential point. > > You say that GPS assumes, as a postulate, > > "all clocks should indicate the same time." > > No. > > That is the engineering objective. > > It is not a physical law. > > A thermostat has the objective of maintaining 20 °C. > > That does not imply that rooms naturally stay at 20 °C. > > The thermostat needs a physical model of heat transfer in order to know > how much heating to apply. > > Likewise, GPS needs a physical model predicting how clocks naturally > evolve before any correction is applied. > > Otherwise there is no way to compute the corrections. > > So I ask again, very simply: > > Which equations predict the natural evolution of GPS clock rates > before synchronization corrections are applied? > > Not the control objective. > > Not the correction algorithm. > > The physical prediction. > > That is the model we are discussing. > > A scientific disagreement is about equations and predictions. > > Not about who calls something an "error". > > Changing the name of a phenomenon does not change the phenomenon. Hm. Sort of like, "Parameterized Post-Newtonian". Thanks for writing, I suggest that the tone and style shows improvement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6uKcnbZF2fz3vOL3nZ2dnZfqnPFi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672041 |
On 08/14/2026 06:58 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/13/2026 04:57 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/08/2026 à 18:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 18:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 17:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 16:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 15:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/08/2026 à 14:46, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 20:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 19:48, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 18:15, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's forget the SI second entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider two identical clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mope, i'm not going to your gedanken delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not interested the slightest in them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is precisely the problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A physical theory must be able to answer well-defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad for physics. GPS, on the other hand, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have to, so it doesn't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either to your identical clocks or for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other of your moronic delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including your SI idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The twin paradox is one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm not interested in gedanken experiments" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is simply refusing to apply your ideas to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisely defined situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal cannot tell what two identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks will read after following different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines, then it is not yet a physical theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I guess a good theological theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should precisely answer whether angels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a pinhead will dance foxtrot or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can-can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, unfortunately, the clocks of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real world are not identical, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never were and they are not going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be. You may check GPS if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not whether real clocks are perfectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist has ever claimed they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is much simpler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose two clocks are initially synchronized and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calibrated to realize the same unit, within arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Python, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the question is as it is in the subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for clocks - outside of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gedankenwelt they're different and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave differently. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one refused to discuss ideal clocks because real >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are imperfect, one could not even write the GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's the real reason why your Shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pumping you with those tales of identical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. After some time of being pumped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you start deeply believing they're normal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious and perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, they are not perfect. They're unusable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they're not obvious. Oppositely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you noticed that - your moronic religion has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never directly said clocks should be identical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never, nowhere? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "moronic religion" being in your demented mind SR, let me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote Albert Einstein: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> « If at the point A of space there is a clock, an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at A can determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at B to determine the time values of events in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the immediate neighbourhood of B. » >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note : "another clock in all respects resembling the one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at A". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never really read this article, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes our "moronic religion" actually said directly that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks should be identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, it hasn't. The above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a perfect example of what I'm saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a tale where clocks are identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pumped with such tales you start believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious, natural and the only option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the idiot lived and mumbled - the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best clocks were pendulums. If the idiot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had some contact with the reality he could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notice that being identical doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to serve them well. But he had no. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANS "identical", too. Instead, your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion has pumped you with some tales. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now you know which clocks are "perfect". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can check GPS, your perfect differently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are perfectly unusable for serious measurements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it means nothing to a brainwashed religious maniac, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just confirmed what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein explicitly writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> tales of perfect identical clocks - until >>>>>>>>>>>>> you start believing they're really perfect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he is not claiming that every physical clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactured on Earth is perfectly identical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is defining an ideal class of clocks suitable for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing a coordinate time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Now, having GPS, we know that his >>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal differently clocks are ideally >>>>>>>>>>>>> unusable for serious measurements - but >>>>>>>>>>>>> his brainwashed doggies don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what theoretical physics does. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's exactly what your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion does and always did. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually, however there was some sense in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Your idiot guru has made an exception. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No physicist believes those objects literally exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep replacing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "assume two identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "all real clocks are identical." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, GPS does not help your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's, unfortunely, a plain, impudent lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical model. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they do. Sorry, since some incompetent >>>>>>>>>>>>> idiots are selling us unusable religious crap >>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to provide a model of our own. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We start from a postulate of "the clocks are >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t). >>>>>>>>>>>>> if they don't want to be- it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>>>>> [a perfectly classical phenomenon, well >>>>>>>>>>>>> known to Galileo and Newton and any 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years old child] and we have to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>> corrections." There is no way of >>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciling our postulate with The >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shit of Einstein. Sorry. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are added on top of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your objection were valid, it would invalidate not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity but virtually every theoretical model in physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, a bit yes. but not quite. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your objection is clearly not against idealization. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. The idealization performed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru was special. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock >>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>> and we have to apply corrections." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is indeed a postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it is not the postulate of special relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it is a postulate of the model applied in >>>>>>>>>>> GPS. They didn't apply your Shit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Surprise? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a factual claim, and it is simply false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it is not. You're a fanatic idiot, your >>>>>>>>> opinion - well, is worthless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> GPS does not start from the postulate >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> t' = t. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes it does. In GPS if clocks were >>>>>>>>> perfect they would be perfectly synchronized, >>>>>>>>> i.e. indicating perfect t'=t - wouldn't >>>>>>>>> they? >>>>>>>>> That's what they're trying to reach as >>>>>>>>> closely as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It starts from the opposite observation: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> left uncorrected, clocks on GPS satellites and clocks on Earth >>>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>> remain synchronized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That difference is not treated as a "clock error". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is predicted from the satellites' trajectories and the Earth's >>>>>>>>>> gravitational field. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not? Do you think an error can't be >>>>>>>>> predicted? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The engineering model then adds ordinary clock errors: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - oscillator instability, >>>>>>>>>> - ageing, >>>>>>>>>> - temperature, >>>>>>>>>> - electronic noise, >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those are genuine clock errors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Relativistic time offsets are not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as "relativistic time >>>>>>>>> offset" in GPS model, unfortunately. There is >>>>>>>>> just another error to deal with. By corrections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If they were merely "clock errors", they would be unpredictable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? >>>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>>> and- examples/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> clock errors >>>>>>>>>> -> stochastic, hardware-dependent, estimated from >>>>>>>>>> measurements; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of systematic errors? Really? >>>>>>>>> https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>>> and- examples/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calling the second category "clock errors" does not change what >>>>>>>>>> they are. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More importantly, if GPS really assumed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> t' = t >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as a physical postulate, satellite clocks would remain >>>>>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>>>>> without relativistic corrections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Newton was definitely assuming t'=t. >>>>>>>>> Didn't he apply corrections to clocks? >>>>>>>>> Weren't those corrections predictable? >>>>>>>>> He had pendulums, you know... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the other hand - if they applied the >>>>>>>>> postulates of The Shit - the satellite >>>>>>>>> clocks wouldn't remain synchronized at >>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>> Isn't that, accidentally, a consequence >>>>>>>>> of the postulates of your insane guru - that >>>>>>>>> the clocks are not going to remain >>>>>>>>> synchronized in a situation like that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are still equivocating on the word "error". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course systematic errors exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But calling a physical effect an "error" does not make it cease >>>>>>>> to be a >>>>>>>> physical effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suppose I call gravity a "systematic ruler error". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Objects would still fall with acceleration g. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The equations would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The predictions would remain exactly the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only the vocabulary would have changed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same applies here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may call the relativistic frequency shift of GPS clocks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "a systematic clock error" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if you wish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it have precisely that magnitude? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it depend on the gravitational potential? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is >>>>>>>> launched? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>> orbit changes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A physical model answers those questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But GPS doesn't give a damn to brilliant >>>>>>> answers of your bunch of idiots. It just >>>>>>> NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates >>>>>>> that if they're not synchronized (i.e. they >>>>>>> are not indicating t'=t) - it's an error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Common sense has been warning the idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, GPS continuously maintains a common coordinate time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Heard of Occam's razor? If your local idiocy >>>>>>> is not needed it doesn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question is not what engineers WANT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question is why clocks naturally drift apart if no >>>>>>>> correction is >>>>>>>> applied. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pfffff. That's because they're clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling the drift a "clock error" does not explain it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you feel discomforted, poor idiot? >>>>>>> Nobody cares. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It merely gives it another name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's all about the names. Poincare has been trying >>>>>>> to explain that. Not that he understood much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More generally, you keep avoiding the questions that actually >>>>>>>> distinguish >>>>>>>> between competing theories. >>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which equations does your GPS model use to compute the >>>>>>>> satellite clock >>>>>>>> corrections? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of The Shit's equation have some value. >>>>>>> Why not? The most important of them were invented >>>>>>> by Maxwell and Lorentz anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Can you write those equations explicitly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which prediction of special relativity do those equations >>>>>>>> disagree >>>>>>>> with? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Python, poor trash, your Shit is based >>>>>>> on the Holiest Postulate. ANY frame >>>>>>> dependent correction is violating >>>>>>> its predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Which experimental result is better explained by your >>>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>>> than by relativity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time is what clocks indicate, poor trash. >>>>>>> Sorry, the clocks indicate t'=t. If >>>>>>> your idiot guru ever understood what >>>>>>> clocks are and what they're for he >>>>>>> wouldn't fool your moronic religion so >>>>>>> much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those are scientific questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And engineers don't care about them >>>>>>> much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the first time, you are stating your position clearly. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say: >>>>>> >>>>>> "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if >>>>>> they're not >>>>>> synchronized, it's an error." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is exactly where we disagree. >>>>> >>>>> We disagree in almost exactly everything. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are confusing three completely different things. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The engineering objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> GPS wants all satellite clocks to realize the same coordinate time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The observed physical behaviour. >>>>>> >>>>>> Left to themselves, clocks on different worldlines do not remain >>>>>> synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> That depends on the details of their >>>>> construction. Your moronic religion >>>>> has persuaded you its mumble is guaranteed >>>>> by some unknown (but powerful) Higher Force >>>>> - and you're so stupid that you've bought it. >>>>> That's bullshit. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. The physical model. >>>>>> >>>>>> The purpose of the model is to predict exactly how and why those >>>>>> clocks >>>>>> drift apart, so that the engineering system can compensate for it. >>>>> >>>>> No. The purpose of the model is steering >>>>> your thinking and talking. >>>>> >>>>>> Calling the drift an "error" does not explain the drift. >>>>>> >>>>>> It merely states that you intend to correct it. >>>>> >>>>> That's, unfortunately, enough to know you >>>>> disobey those mad commands of your mad >>>>> guru. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Suppose I build an autopilot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its objective is to keep an aircraft on its intended course. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the aircraft is pushed sideways by a crosswind, the autopilot >>>>>> calls >>>>>> that a "tracking error". >>>>>> >>>>>> Fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the existence of the tracking error does not eliminate the wind. >>>>> >>>>> Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand - >>>>> eliminate bullshit about clocks not indicating >>>>> t'=t. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A specification does not predict anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> A physical theory does. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it can, for instance, predict that >>>>> a day compared to 1/86400 of itself is >>>>> going to be 99766. And then scream >>>>> CONFIRMED!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!". And >>>>> cast slanders and other shit at the >>>>> ones rotfling. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Engineers care about achieving synchronization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Physicists care about predicting what happens before >>>>>> synchronization is >>>>>> enforced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are complementary questions, not competing ones. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those are not. While: >>>>> "perfect clocks are identical clocks" >>>>> and >>>>> "perfect clocks are synchronized clocks" >>>>> are definitely competing. >>>> >>>> I asked you: >>>> >>>> Which equations does the GPS model use? >>>> >>>> You answered: >>>> >>>> "No" >>>> >>>> when asked to write them down. >>>> >>>> Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict >>>> special relativity. >>> >>> Well, Python is coming back to lies. No surprise. >>> >>> >>>> You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to >>>> state >>>> at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking. >>> >>> The Shit of Einstein predicts time, i.e. >>> what clocks indicate, to be frame dependent. >>> The GPS model assumes as a postulate the >>> clocks are going to indicate the same >>> in every frame. Feel free to see no >>> difference here, it's already known you're >>> an idiot. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Your position has now become: >>>> >>>> GPS uses a model different from relativity; >>>> >>>> you cannot write that model; >>> >>> A lie, of course, I've written one of its >>> postulates directly. You've admitted it is >>> not a postulate of your Shit. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Different clock technologies have different instrumental drifts. >>>> >>>> But the relativistic contribution has a very specific dependence on >>>> motion and gravitational potential. >>>> >>>> A physical model predicts that dependence. >>>> >>>> Calling everything a "clock error" merely changes the terminology. >>> >>> Unfortunately, that's enough. Poincare has been >>> trying to explain idiots like you that it's >>> all about terminology - but it was hopeless, and >>> anyway - he didn't understand much. >>> >>>> And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this. >>>> >>>> A systematic error is still characterized by a model: >>>> >>>> its sign, >>>> its magnitude, >>>> its dependence on parameters, >>>> and the correction to apply. >>>> >>>> So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic >>>> error, >>>> fine. >>>> >>>> Then write the equation for that systematic error. >>> >>> Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't >>> involved. >>> >>> >>>> You still have not provided an alternative model. >>> >>> GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing, >>> but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup. >> >> Maciej, >> >> You have now moved the burden of proof. >> >> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >> relativity. >> >> Very well. >> >> Then one of two things must be true. >> >> Either you know that model. >> >> Or you do not. >> >> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations >> or predictions. >> >> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >> contradicts relativity. >> >> Simply saying >> >> "GPS has provided it" >> >> is not an argument. >> >> I could equally write >> >> "Somebody has another theory." >> >> That says nothing until the theory is stated. >> >> Notice that I have never asked you to derive the GPS model yourself. >> >> I only asked a much simpler question: >> >> Which equations does it use? >> >> You answered that you could not write them. >> >> Then, a few lines later, you nevertheless asserted that those unknown >> equations contradict special relativity. >> >> That conclusion simply does not follow. >> >> More importantly, you still avoid the essential point. >> >> You say that GPS assumes, as a postulate, >> >> "all clocks should indicate the same time." >> >> No. >> >> That is the engineering objective. >> >> It is not a physical law. >> >> A thermostat has the objective of maintaining 20 °C. >> >> That does not imply that rooms naturally stay at 20 °C. >> >> The thermostat needs a physical model of heat transfer in order to know >> how much heating to apply. >> >> Likewise, GPS needs a physical model predicting how clocks naturally >> evolve before any correction is applied. >> >> Otherwise there is no way to compute the corrections. >> >> So I ask again, very simply: >> >> Which equations predict the natural evolution of GPS clock rates >> before synchronization corrections are applied? >> >> Not the control objective. >> >> Not the correction algorithm. >> >> The physical prediction. >> >> That is the model we are discussing. >> >> A scientific disagreement is about equations and predictions. >> >> Not about who calls something an "error". >> >> Changing the name of a phenomenon does not change the phenomenon. > > > Hm. Sort of like, "Parameterized Post-Newtonian". > > > Thanks for writing, I suggest that the tone and style shows improvement. > > Agreeable/arguably of course I have my own firm opinions not shared by many at all. For example, I don't really believe anti-realist operationalist instrumentalist reductionalist nominalist fictionalist logicist positivists. Which many claim is their theory, ..., most having no reason why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-13 07:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <115khba$1m3p5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672011 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 12/08/2026 à 20:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 19:48, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 12/08/2026 à 18:15, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's forget the SI second entirely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Consider two identical clocks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mope, i'm not going to your gedanken delusions. >>>>>>>>> Not interested the slightest in them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is precisely the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A physical theory must be able to answer well-defined thought >>>>>>>> experiments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too bad for physics. GPS, on the other hand, >>>>>>> doesn't have to, so it doesn't give a damn >>>>>>> either to your identical clocks or for >>>>>>> any other of your moronic delusions. >>>>>>> Including your SI idiocy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The twin paradox is one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saying >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "I'm not interested in gedanken experiments" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is not an argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is simply refusing to apply your ideas to a precisely defined >>>>>>>> situation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If your proposal cannot tell what two identical clocks will read >>>>>>>> after following different worldlines, then it is not yet a >>>>>>>> physical theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I guess a good theological theory >>>>>>> should precisely answer whether angels >>>>>>> on a pinhead will dance foxtrot or >>>>>>> can-can. >>>>>>> But, unfortunately, the clocks of the >>>>>>> real world are not identical, they >>>>>>> never were and they are not going to >>>>>>> be. You may check GPS if you don't >>>>>>> believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is not whether real clocks are perfectly identical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course they are not. >>>>>> >>>>>> No physicist has ever claimed they are. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is much simpler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose two clocks are initially synchronized and calibrated to >>>>>> realize the same unit, within arbitrary precision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Python, >>>>> You have changed the subject again. >>>>> >>>>> No, the question is as it is in the subject. >>>>> >>>>> As for clocks - outside of your moronic >>>>> gedankenwelt they're different and >>>>> behave differently. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If one refused to discuss ideal clocks because real clocks are >>>>>> imperfect, one could not even write the GPS equations. >>>>> >>>>> And that's the real reason why your Shit >>>>> is pumping you with those tales of identical >>>>> clocks. After some time of being pumped >>>>> you start deeply believing they're normal, >>>>> obvious and perfect. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, they are not perfect. They're unusable. >>>>> And they're not obvious. Oppositely. >>>>> >>>>> Have you noticed that - your moronic religion has >>>>> never directly said clocks should be identical? >>>>> Never, nowhere? >>>> >>>> "moronic religion" being in your demented mind SR, let me quote >>>> Albert Einstein: >>>> >>>> « If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can >>>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A >>>> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with >>>> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in >>>> all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>> at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>> neighbourhood of B. » >>>> >>>> Note : "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A". >>>> >>>> You never really read this article, did you? >>>> >>>> So yes our "moronic religion" actually said directly that clocks >>>> should be identical. >>> >>> No, poor piece of shit, it hasn't. The above >>> is a perfect example of what I'm saying. >>> Just a tale where clocks are identical. >>> Pumped with such tales you start believing >>> it's obvious, natural and the only option. >>> >>> When the idiot lived and mumbled - the >>> best clocks were pendulums. If the idiot >>> had some contact with the reality he could >>> notice that being identical doesn't have >>> to serve them well. But he had no. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are perfectly identical. >>> >>> And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks" >>> MEANS "identical", too. Instead, your moronic >>> religion has pumped you with some tales. >>> So now you know which clocks are "perfect". >>> >>> Anyone can check GPS, your perfect differently >>> clocks are perfectly unusable for serious measurements. >>> But it means nothing to a brainwashed religious maniac, >>> right? >> >> Maciej, >> >> You have just confirmed what I wrote. >> >> Einstein explicitly writes >> >> "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." > > Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the > tales of perfect identical clocks - until > you start believing they're really perfect. > > >> Of course he is not claiming that every physical clock manufactured on >> Earth is perfectly identical. >> >> He is defining an ideal class of clocks suitable for establishing a >> coordinate time. > > Right. Now, having GPS, we know that his > ideal differently clocks are ideally > unusable for serious measurements - but > his brainwashed doggies don't care. > >> That is exactly what theoretical physics does. > > Yes, that's exactly what your moronic > religion does and always did. > Usually, however there was some sense in > that. Your idiot guru has made an exception. > > > > >> Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids. >> >> No physicist believes those objects literally exist. >> >> They are models. >> >> You keep replacing >> >> "assume two identical clocks" >> >> by >> >> "all real clocks are identical." > > No I don't. > > >> Finally, GPS does not help your argument. >> >> GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model. > > That's, unfortunely, a plain, impudent lie. > >> Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying physical model. > > Yes, they do. Sorry, since some incompetent > idiots are selling us unusable religious crap > we have to provide a model of our own. > > We start from a postulate of "the clocks are > to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t). > if they don't want to be- it's a clock error > [a perfectly classical phenomenon, well > known to Galileo and Newton and any 10 > years old child] and we have to apply > corrections." There is no way of > reconciling our postulate with The > Shit of Einstein. Sorry. You are an 8 year old child. Get with the shit of Einstein. You don't understand gedanken Physics? No wonder you are so puerile, so infantile, so Gerber, kid. I don't think anyone here wants to spoonfeed you your apple sauce this morning. This stuff is well known to Fermi, and to Tesla. Even Volta took in his daily Gedanken Physics. You are an 8 year old child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 20:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cad2be359495ad$2000108$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671983 |
On 8/11/2026 7:30 PM, Python wrote: > Le 11/08/2026 à 19:24, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 11/08/2026 à 19:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 17:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 15:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 06:08, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, an observer is crossing Solar System with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any, poor piece of shit? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) >>>>>>>>>>>>> = 2/sqrt(3) >>>>>>>>>>>>> = 1.1547... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' ~= 99766 s, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is about >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 h 43 min. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> One prediction is - 99766. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> From the postulates. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > No. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See, poor piece of shit - lying may look >>>>>>>>>>>> like a good idea when you're cornered, but >>>>>>>>>>>> it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly >>>>>>>>>>>> when the one who lies is such a pathetic >>>>>>>>>>>> idiot as you are. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a >>>>>>>>>>>> solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to >>>>>>>>>>>> give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> he? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>> observer moving >>>>>>>>>>> at c/2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece >>>>>>>>>> of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you >>>>>>>>>> admit: one of the predictions I asked is >>>>>>>>>> as I've told. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're still a stinking piece of lying shit, >>>>>>>> And the mumble of your idiot guru is still >>>>>>>> not even consistent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I wrote >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I meant exactly what the sentence says. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They lead to the Lorentz transformations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Applying those transformations to the particular case >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gives >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is no contradiction whatsoever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is exactly like saying: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it predicts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> c = sqrt(a²+b²), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and only for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a = 3, >>>>>>>>> b = 4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> c = 5. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Likewise, special relativity predicts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and only after substituting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> evaluation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz >>>>>>>>>>> transformation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>> of itself". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is >>>>>>>>>> - to compare something to the unit, when your >>>>>>>>>> idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was >>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction >>>>>>>>>> was that comparing a day to itself is going >>>>>>>>>> to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he >>>>>>>>>> was. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are still confusing three different things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. the historical definition of the unit; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one >>>>>>>>> inertial frame; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>> same two >>>>>>>>> events in another inertial frame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>> the Earth's >>>>>>>>> frame: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is an input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> the same two events in another inertial frame: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this gives approximately >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody is "comparing a day to itself". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time >>>>>>>>> intervals in >>>>>>>>> different inertial frames. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Earth-frame interval is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 24 h, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the moving observer finds >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 27.71 h. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot >>>>>>>> guru asserted that comparing a day to >>>>>>>> 1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must >>>>>>>> be true, no doubt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again, you replace the statement by another one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Python, >>>>>> yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> "a solar day contains 99766 seconds". >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru >>>>>> predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing >>>>>> it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's >>>>>> what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was >>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> There is one point you consistently avoid. >>>> >>>> Because it's insignificant. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames. >>>>> >>>>> The experiment is: >>>>> >>>>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>>>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >>>>> >>>>> Those are the only events involved. >>>>> >>>>> The question is simply: >>>>> >>>>> What coordinates do those same two events have >>>>> in another inertial frame moving at c/2? >>>> >>>> No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply: >>>> what will an observer moving with c/2 measure. >>>> That you're too stupid to know what "measure" >>>> means is not my problem. A shame, however, >>>> that not knowing even that you dare opening >>>> your fanatic, lying muzzle here. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> I know perfectly well what "measure" means. >> >> Python, >> >> No. >> >> You don't. >> >> >>> >>> A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical >>> quantity by comparison with a unit. >>> >>> That is exactly what is done here. >>> >>> The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two >>> events: >>> >>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >> >> Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was >> 1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru >> believed somehow that the result must be 99766. >> >> Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying >> that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his >> intension... But I assume it wasn't. > > Maciej, > > No. > > This is where your argument fails. > > You write: > > "the unit that time interval was compared to was > 1/86400 of that time interval." > > No. > > That is simply false. > > Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined > as > > "1/86400 of the particular day being measured." > > It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day What is the max abberation between the mean solar day and a particular day, poor piece of shit? Isn't it less than 0.05%? For the discussion like the one it is completely insignificant. You're just desperately trying to change the subject, hoping that if you succeed - bad facts will go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 15:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vt6BTSZ7jtPS2dw1NLmXf4MrR2Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #671986 |
Le 11/08/2026 à 20:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/11/2026 7:30 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 11/08/2026 à 19:24, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 19:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 17:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 15:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 06:08, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, an observer is crossing Solar System with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any, poor piece of shit? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> = 2/sqrt(3) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> = 1.1547... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' ~= 99766 s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 h 43 min. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> One prediction is - 99766. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> From the postulates. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > No. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> See, poor piece of shit - lying may look >>>>>>>>>>>>> like a good idea when you're cornered, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly >>>>>>>>>>>>> when the one who lies is such a pathetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot as you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a >>>>>>>>>>>>> solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>> give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> he? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving >>>>>>>>>>>> at c/2. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no. >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece >>>>>>>>>>> of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you >>>>>>>>>>> admit: one of the predictions I asked is >>>>>>>>>>> as I've told. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're still a stinking piece of lying shit, >>>>>>>>> And the mumble of your idiot guru is still >>>>>>>>> not even consistent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I wrote >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I meant exactly what the sentence says. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They lead to the Lorentz transformations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Applying those transformations to the particular case >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> gives >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is no contradiction whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is exactly like saying: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it predicts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> c = sqrt(a²+b²), >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and only for >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a = 3, >>>>>>>>>> b = 4 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> c = 5. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise, special relativity predicts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and only after substituting >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 99766 s. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> evaluation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz >>>>>>>>>>>> transformation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>>> of itself". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is >>>>>>>>>>> - to compare something to the unit, when your >>>>>>>>>>> idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was >>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction >>>>>>>>>>> was that comparing a day to itself is going >>>>>>>>>>> to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he >>>>>>>>>>> was. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are still confusing three different things. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. the historical definition of the unit; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one >>>>>>>>>> inertial frame; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>>> same two >>>>>>>>>> events in another inertial frame. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>>> the Earth's >>>>>>>>>> frame: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is an input. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> the same two events in another inertial frame: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this gives approximately >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody is "comparing a day to itself". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time >>>>>>>>>> intervals in >>>>>>>>>> different inertial frames. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Earth-frame interval is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 24 h, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and the moving observer finds >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 27.71 h. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot >>>>>>>>> guru asserted that comparing a day to >>>>>>>>> 1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must >>>>>>>>> be true, no doubt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once again, you replace the statement by another one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Python, >>>>>>> yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I never wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> "a solar day contains 99766 seconds". >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru >>>>>>> predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing >>>>>>> it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's >>>>>>> what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was >>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one point you consistently avoid. >>>>> >>>>> Because it's insignificant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames. >>>>>> >>>>>> The experiment is: >>>>>> >>>>>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>>>>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are the only events involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is simply: >>>>>> >>>>>> What coordinates do those same two events have >>>>>> in another inertial frame moving at c/2? >>>>> >>>>> No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply: >>>>> what will an observer moving with c/2 measure. >>>>> That you're too stupid to know what "measure" >>>>> means is not my problem. A shame, however, >>>>> that not knowing even that you dare opening >>>>> your fanatic, lying muzzle here. >>>> >>>> Maciej, >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> I know perfectly well what "measure" means. >>> >>> Python, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> You don't. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical >>>> quantity by comparison with a unit. >>>> >>>> That is exactly what is done here. >>>> >>>> The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two >>>> events: >>>> >>>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >>> >>> Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was >>> 1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru >>> believed somehow that the result must be 99766. >>> >>> Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying >>> that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his >>> intension... But I assume it wasn't. >> >> Maciej, >> >> No. >> >> This is where your argument fails. >> >> You write: >> >> "the unit that time interval was compared to was >> 1/86400 of that time interval." >> >> No. >> >> That is simply false. >> >> Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined >> as >> >> "1/86400 of the particular day being measured." >> >> It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day > > What is the max abberation between > the mean solar day and a particular day, > poor piece of shit? Isn't it less than > 0.05%? > For the discussion like the one it is > completely insignificant. I didn't say otherwise. This is a diversion on your part. > You're just desperately trying to change > the subject, hoping that if you succeed - > bad facts will go away. Clearly you are. I'm not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M3-dnWGj9KrjVub3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #671983 |
On 08/11/2026 10:30 AM, Python wrote: > Le 11/08/2026 à 19:24, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 11/08/2026 à 19:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 17:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 15:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/08/2026 à 06:08, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, an observer is crossing Solar System with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any, poor piece of shit? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) >>>>>>>>>>>>> = 2/sqrt(3) >>>>>>>>>>>>> = 1.1547... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Delta t' ~= 99766 s, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is about >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 h 43 min. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> One prediction is - 99766. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> From the postulates. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > No. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See, poor piece of shit - lying may look >>>>>>>>>>>> like a good idea when you're cornered, but >>>>>>>>>>>> it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly >>>>>>>>>>>> when the one who lies is such a pathetic >>>>>>>>>>>> idiot as you are. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a >>>>>>>>>>>> solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to >>>>>>>>>>>> give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> he? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are changing the question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>> observer moving >>>>>>>>>>> at c/2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece >>>>>>>>>> of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you >>>>>>>>>> admit: one of the predictions I asked is >>>>>>>>>> as I've told. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're still a stinking piece of lying shit, >>>>>>>> And the mumble of your idiot guru is still >>>>>>>> not even consistent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I wrote >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I meant exactly what the sentence says. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They lead to the Lorentz transformations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Applying those transformations to the particular case >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gives >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is no contradiction whatsoever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is exactly like saying: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it predicts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> c = sqrt(a²+b²), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and only for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a = 3, >>>>>>>>> b = 4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> c = 5. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Likewise, special relativity predicts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and only after substituting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2 >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does one obtain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> evaluation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz >>>>>>>>>>> transformation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>> of itself". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is >>>>>>>>>> - to compare something to the unit, when your >>>>>>>>>> idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was >>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction >>>>>>>>>> was that comparing a day to itself is going >>>>>>>>>> to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he >>>>>>>>>> was. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are still confusing three different things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. the historical definition of the unit; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one >>>>>>>>> inertial frame; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>> same two >>>>>>>>> events in another inertial frame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>> the Earth's >>>>>>>>> frame: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t = 86400 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is an input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> the same two events in another inertial frame: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = gamma Delta t. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v = c/2, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this gives approximately >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Delta t' = 99766 s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody is "comparing a day to itself". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time >>>>>>>>> intervals in >>>>>>>>> different inertial frames. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Earth-frame interval is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 24 h, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the moving observer finds >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 27.71 h. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot >>>>>>>> guru asserted that comparing a day to >>>>>>>> 1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must >>>>>>>> be true, no doubt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again, you replace the statement by another one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Python, >>>>>> yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> "a solar day contains 99766 seconds". >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru >>>>>> predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing >>>>>> it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's >>>>>> what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was >>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> There is one point you consistently avoid. >>>> >>>> Because it's insignificant. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames. >>>>> >>>>> The experiment is: >>>>> >>>>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>>>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >>>>> >>>>> Those are the only events involved. >>>>> >>>>> The question is simply: >>>>> >>>>> What coordinates do those same two events have >>>>> in another inertial frame moving at c/2? >>>> >>>> No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply: >>>> what will an observer moving with c/2 measure. >>>> That you're too stupid to know what "measure" >>>> means is not my problem. A shame, however, >>>> that not knowing even that you dare opening >>>> your fanatic, lying muzzle here. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> I know perfectly well what "measure" means. >> >> Python, >> >> No. >> >> You don't. >> >> >>> >>> A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical >>> quantity by comparison with a unit. >>> >>> That is exactly what is done here. >>> >>> The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two >>> events: >>> >>> E1 = solar noon on Earth, >>> E2 = the next solar noon on Earth. >> >> Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was >> 1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru >> believed somehow that the result must be 99766. >> >> Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying >> that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his >> intension... But I assume it wasn't. > > Maciej, > > No. > > This is where your argument fails. > > You write: > > "the unit that time interval was compared to was > 1/86400 of that time interval." > > No. > > That is simply false. > > Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined > as > > "1/86400 of the particular day being measured." > > It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day, later the > ephemeris second, now the Cs-133 transition). > > The unit is independent of the particular interval being measured. > > Otherwise every measurement would be a tautology. > > It would be like defining the metre as > > "1/1000 of this particular stick" > > and then claiming that measuring the stick must always give exactly > 1000 metres. > > That is not how metrology works. > > The standard is independent of the object being measured. > > Likewise, the interval between two solar noons is compared with an > independent time standard. > > Special relativity then predicts how the coordinates of those same two > events transform between inertial frames. > > You keep replacing the actual experiment by a different one in which the > measuring unit is defined from the very interval being measured. > > That experiment is yours. > > It is not the one used in metrology, and it is not the one described by > special relativity. > If there's space-contraction, or, time-dilation or length-contraction, then "length" and "distance" have different units. Often about "metric" and "norm", "length" and "distance", usually given in "meters", any account of either time-dilation or length-contraction, in terms of velocities, means that both "metric" and "norm" make for different units, and, "length" and "distance" have different units. So, how long it takes the twin's bead of sweat to roll down his brow, has that the other twin has a different norm and metric, the other's metric and norm. Then, they both respire at the same rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web