Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 274 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db13d593ad79b5$85674$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674148 |
On 10/3/2026 6:51 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 18:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/3/2026 6:33 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/3/2026 6:15 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 03/10/2026 à 18:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 10/3/2026 3:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Your entire argument is still: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relativity predicts X. >>>>>>> Engineers compensate X. >>>>>>> After compensation: approximately zero. >>>>>>> Therefore relativity predicted zero and failed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your entire agreement is still: >>>>>> Check! My knight would be on A3 if >>>>>> I didn't move it!!!!!!!! >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, Maciej. >>>>> >>>>> And your rebuttal is: >>>>> >>>>> "Your knight is NOT on A3!" >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Because I moved it. >>>> >>>> The reason doesn't matter, there is no >>>> check, sorry, poor piece of shit. >>> >>> Exactly, Maciej. >>> >>> There is no check AFTER I move the knight. >> >> >> And there is no predicted by the >> idiot time dilation, i.e. difference >> in clock indication. > > Correct, Maciej. > > And there is no predicted check AFTER the knight is deliberately moved > to cancel it. And there is no time dilation, since we corrected clocks. Poincare has almost got it; the differences between mathematical theories are in naming, and so are the differences between physical theories. Newtonian physics - simply - is calling a clock "perfect" when it's synchronized with others, The Shit is calling it "perfect" when it fits mad delusions of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ysAqX9oXrgBT2LbWwZ7cbTPFLEM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674150 |
Excellent. We've reached the point where you simply rename the phenomenon
out of existence.
Physical rate difference exists.
Engineers compensate it.
Clock indications stay synchronized.
Maciej:
Therefore there was no physical rate difference.
We call synchronization "no time dilation".
By that logic:
Gravity accelerates a helicopter downward.
Rotor thrust compensates it.
Altitude remains constant.
Therefore:
no gravity.
And no, Newtonian physics does NOT define a "perfect clock" as one
"synchronized with others".
Two excellent Newtonian clocks can display different times because
somebody set one five minutes ahead.
Nothing about their quality changed.
You've confused three different concepts:
clock quality
clock synchronization
clock rate
and solved the resulting confusion by changing the vocabulary.
Poincare deserves better.
And the funniest part remains:
Relativity calculates the compensation.
GPS applies the compensation.
The compensation works.
Maciej:
See? That's Newtonian physics.
Apparently Newtonian physics is whatever remains after using
relativity and erasing the label.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db4f184e46c194$98482$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674164 |
On 10/4/2026 12:54 PM, Python wrote: > Excellent. We've reached the point where you simply rename the phenomenon > out of existence. > > Physical rate difference exists. But time dilation, described by the idiot not as any rate difference but as a difference in indications - doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cLmj5ZEBiqJt38gJkld4-SnkF-Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674168 |
Maciej, a difference in clock indications that grows with time IS a
rate difference.
If after one day:
t' - t = 38 us
and after two days:
t' - t = 76 us,
then the difference is accumulating at:
38 us/day.
That's what "rate difference" means.
GPS then deliberately compensates that rate difference, so the
difference in indications does not accumulate.
Your argument has now become:
Before compensation:
rate difference -> accumulating indication difference.
After compensation:
no accumulating indication difference.
Maciej:
Therefore the rate difference never existed.
Once again:
X - X = 0
does not imply:
X = 0.
You haven't refuted time dilation.
You've discovered cancellation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db5906f688ad3b$96013$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674164 |
On 10/4/2026 12:54 PM, Python wrote: > Excellent. We've reached the point where you simply rename the phenomenon > out of existence. > > Physical rate difference exists. > Engineers compensate it. > Clock indications stay synchronized. > > Maciej: > > Therefore there was no physical rate difference. Lie, like aqlways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s2cuwy.xq68g01snfew5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #674069 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Oct 26 21:09:12 +0000, Python wrote: > > > Le 01/10/2026 à 19:22, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : > >> On 10/1/2026 6:01 PM, Python wrote:\ > >> > >> Python, poor piece of shit, your mad ravings and lies won't change the > >> facts, > >> which are: > >> Relativity - 38us of the difference in indications. > >> 0 clock error to compensate. > >> GPS - 0 difference, 38us of clock error to compensate. > >> > >> 2 values, none of them match. > > > > Maciej, let's put the matching values next to each other. > > > > RELATIVITY predicts: > > > > gravitational contribution: about +45 us/day velocity > > contribution: about -7 us/day > > ---------------- > > net rate offset: about +38 us/day > > > > GPS engineering applies: > > > > required compensation: about -38 us/day > > > > GPS then obtains: > > > > residual systematic drift: about 0 us/day > > > > So the matches are rather spectacular: > > > > Relativity predicts: +38 us/day GPS compensates: > > -38 us/day > > ----------- > > GPS residual: 0 us/day > > > > And even separately: > > > > GR gravitational prediction: ~+45 us/day GPS gravitational > > correction: ~-45 us/day > > > > SR kinematic prediction: ~-7 us/day GPS kinematic correction: > > ~+7 us/day > > > > You obtain your "2 values, none of them match" only by comparing > > DIFFERENT quantities: > > > > predicted uncompensated effect 38 observed residual after > > correction 0 > > > > while carefully omitting the quantity between them: > > > > applied correction 38 > > > > This is like saying: > > > > predicted error: +38 correction applied: -38 final error: > > 0 > > > > and concluding: > > > > "38 != 0, therefore the prediction failed." > > > > No, Maciej. > > > > 38 - 38 = 0. > > > > The numbers match so well that you've had to rename the second 38 "clock > > error" to pretend you can't see the first one. > > Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software > adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates do > not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground clocks. > > Interestingly, 45.2us/day (divided by 86400) represents a fractional > increase of 5.24e-10 us/sec. > > It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling > signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to c(1+5.24e-10) > ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree? It seems to me that you have no theory at all. You are merely picking those effects from general relativity that depend on the time-time element of the metric tensor (which happens to be the Newtonian potetial to lowest approximation) and claim those GR results after some distortions as 'Newtonian predictions', Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119p8m3$2gd4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674069 |
Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>
> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software
> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates do
> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground clocks.
Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
================================================================
This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
================================================================
Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs
off sync. The GPS-system time is called t.
So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV.
The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and
are measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and
the change in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs
as a correction polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to
the receiver together with t_SV, and the correction is made in
the receiver.
Read this article!
See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
From the Interface Control Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every
6 minutes. That means that the receiver will get the corrected
time t every 6. minutes.
The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of
the SV-clock t_SV.
According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter
is ± 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without
correction.
So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
>
> Interestingly, 45.2us/day (divided by 86400) represents a fractional
> increase of 5.24e-10 us/sec.
Quite.
The GPS continuously measures the gravitational blue shift to be
Δf/f = -Δλ/λ = 5.2996e-10, and has done so all the time for 49 years.
>
> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling
> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to c(1+5.24e-10)
> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree?
Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation.
He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with
radius r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by:
Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s
Δv/c = 3.251e-5
If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then
the speed when it hits the ground would be
v = c(1+3.251e-5)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18daeb3454929685$86565$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674117 |
On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software >> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates do >> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground >> clocks. > > Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy. > > The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. > ================================================================ > This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of relativistic shit. > ================================================================ > > Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs > off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. > So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. Right, poor trash. To get correct time - we have to piss at mad assertions of your mad religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vD5a-dbNeGrZW_BMBAcnT4DILEc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674120 |
Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>
>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software
>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates do
>>> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground
>>> clocks.
>>
>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>>
>> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
>> ================================================================
>> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
>
> Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of
> relativistic shit.
>
>
>> ================================================================
>>
>> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs
>> off sync. The GPS-system time is called t.
>> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV.
>
> Right, poor trash. To get correct time -
> we have to piss at mad assertions of
> your mad religion.
Maciej, Paul has just given you the distinction you've been avoiding for
days.
The raw satellite clock time is:
t_SV
It is NOT continually adjusted to equal GPS system time.
Its residual offset, rate error and rate drift are measured, parameters
describing them are broadcast, and the RECEIVER computes corrected GPS
time.
And before launch/operation the satellite clock rate itself has the
well-known fractional frequency offset
-4.4647 x 10^-10
specifically to compensate for relativistic effects.
That isn't Paul's terminology. It is what the official GPS interface
specification says.
Your response is:
"lie"
followed by:
"To get correct time we have to piss at
mad assertions of your mad religion."
But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite.
There are TWO quite distinct things:
1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock;
2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using
a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc.
You've spent days conflating them.
And the official specification is devastatingly explicit:
"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ...
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects."
It then gives:
Delta f/f = -4.4647 x 10^-10
and
10.2299999954326 MHz.
So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times:
Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate
-4.4647 x 10^-10?
You already admitted:
it doesn't.
Your "Galilean rule" says only:
CORRECT THE CLOCK!
Paul has now shown you the actual engineering.
The engineers need to know:
CORRECT IT BY HOW MUCH?
And there, once again, Galileo suddenly goes silent.
So your rebuttal to the actual GPS specification is now essentially:
GPS engineers:
We offset the clock rate by -4.4647e-10
to compensate for relativistic effects.
Maciej:
No you don't. That's Galilean.
GPS engineers:
Here is the exact number.
Maciej:
GALILEAN!
GPS engineers:
Can Galilean physics calculate it?
Maciej:
No.
At some point, Maciej, shouting the name "Galileo" over somebody else's
calculation stops qualifying as an alternative theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18daff3276207a1b$85669$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674123 |
On 10/3/2026 12:04 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> >>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software >>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual >>>> rates do >>>> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground >>>> clocks. >>> >>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy. >>> >>> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. >>> ================================================================ >>> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. >> >> Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of >> relativistic shit. >> >> >>> ================================================================ >>> >>> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs >>> off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. >>> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. >> >> Right, poor trash. To get correct time - >> we have to piss at mad assertions of >> your mad religion. > > Maciej, Paul has just given you the distinction you've been avoiding for > days. > > The raw satellite clock time is: > > t_SV It doesn't help The Shit at all, as it is not the time the idiot was babbling about too. > And before launch/operation the satellite clock rate itself has the > well-known fractional frequency offset > > -4.4647 x 10^-10 > > specifically to compensate for relativistic effects. They're effects, but they're not relativistic effects. > That isn't Paul's terminology. It is what the official GPS interface > specification says. > > Your response is: > > "lie" Nope. I've said it some times, it's rather ignorance of your mad liturgy than a lie. > > followed by: > > "To get correct time we have to piss at > mad assertions of your mad religion." > > But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, only demonstrates to brainwashed fanatic idiots. > There are TWO quite distinct things: > > 1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock; > > 2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using > a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc. > > You've spent days conflating them. > > And the official specification is devastatingly explicit: > > "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ... > are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." As said - rather ignorance than a lie. > and > > 10.2299999954326 MHz. That's what "would appear". The measurement result (direct comparing to the clock of the satellite) is 10.223. > So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times: > > Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate > -4.4647 x 10^-10? > > You already admitted: > > it doesn't. > > Your "Galilean rule" says only: > > CORRECT THE CLOCK! And this prediction is correct, while The Shit's prediction of "don't correct clocks, they are going to have different indications" - fails miserably. Common sense has been warning the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0x63rClBU5bAjbdlZwa8RyY9kE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674124 |
Le 03/10/2026 à 12:46, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/3/2026 12:04 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>>>
>>>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software
>>>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual
>>>>> rates do
>>>>> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground
>>>>> clocks.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
>>>> ================================================================
>>>> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
>>>
>>> Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of
>>> relativistic shit.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ================================================================
>>>>
>>>> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs
>>>> off sync. The GPS-system time is called t.
>>>> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV.
>>>
>>> Right, poor trash. To get correct time -
>>> we have to piss at mad assertions of
>>> your mad religion.
>>
>> Maciej, Paul has just given you the distinction you've been avoiding for
>> days.
>>
>> The raw satellite clock time is:
>>
>> t_SV
>
> It doesn't help The Shit at all, as it is not
> the time the idiot was babbling about too.
>
>
>
>> And before launch/operation the satellite clock rate itself has the
>> well-known fractional frequency offset
>>
>> -4.4647 x 10^-10
>>
>> specifically to compensate for relativistic effects.
>
> They're effects, but they're not relativistic
> effects.
>
>> That isn't Paul's terminology. It is what the official GPS interface
>> specification says.
>>
>> Your response is:
>>
>> "lie"
>
> Nope. I've said it some times, it's rather
> ignorance of your mad liturgy than a lie.
>
>
>>
>> followed by:
>>
>> "To get correct time we have to piss at
>> mad assertions of your mad religion."
>>
>> But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite.
>
> Unfortunately, only demonstrates
> to brainwashed fanatic idiots.
>
>
>
>> There are TWO quite distinct things:
>>
>> 1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock;
>>
>> 2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using
>> a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc.
>>
>> You've spent days conflating them.
>>
>> And the official specification is devastatingly explicit:
>>
>> "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ...
>> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects."
>
> As said - rather ignorance than a lie.
>
>
>
>> and
>>
>> 10.2299999954326 MHz.
>
> That's what "would appear". The measurement result
> (direct comparing to the clock of the satellite)
> is 10.223.
>
>
>> So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times:
>>
>> Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate
>> -4.4647 x 10^-10?
>>
>> You already admitted:
>>
>> it doesn't.
>>
>> Your "Galilean rule" says only:
>>
>> CORRECT THE CLOCK!
>
> And this prediction is correct, while
> The Shit's prediction of "don't correct
> clocks, they are going to have different
> indications" - fails miserably. Common
> sense has been warning the idiot.
Maciej,
10.223 MHz?
Is that a typo?
The nominal GPS frequency is 10.23 MHz, while the relativistically
pre-offset value is approximately
10.22999999543 MHz.
10.223 MHz would be 7 kHz below nominal, a fractional difference of
about 6.8e-4 -- roughly 1.5 million times larger than the relativistic
frequency offset we're discussing.
So before I answer that claim, please clarify:
Did you really mean 10.223 MHz?
If yes, please give the source for this "direct comparison to the
clock of the satellite."
If it's a typo, just give the intended number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18db00331b9922d7$87359$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674126 |
On 10/3/2026 12:56 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 12:46, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/3/2026 12:04 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>>> >>>>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and >>>>>> software >>>>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual >>>>>> rates do >>>>>> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground >>>>>> clocks. >>>>> >>>>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy. >>>>> >>>>> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. >>>>> ================================================================ >>>>> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. >>>> >>>> Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of >>>> relativistic shit. >>>> >>>> >>>>> ================================================================ >>>>> >>>>> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs >>>>> off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. >>>>> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. >>>> >>>> Right, poor trash. To get correct time - >>>> we have to piss at mad assertions of >>>> your mad religion. >>> >>> Maciej, Paul has just given you the distinction you've been avoiding >>> for days. >>> >>> The raw satellite clock time is: >>> >>> t_SV >> >> It doesn't help The Shit at all, as it is not >> the time the idiot was babbling about too. >> >> >> >>> And before launch/operation the satellite clock rate itself has the >>> well-known fractional frequency offset >>> >>> -4.4647 x 10^-10 >>> >>> specifically to compensate for relativistic effects. >> >> They're effects, but they're not relativistic >> effects. >> >>> That isn't Paul's terminology. It is what the official GPS interface >>> specification says. >>> >>> Your response is: >>> >>> "lie" >> >> Nope. I've said it some times, it's rather >> ignorance of your mad liturgy than a lie. >> >> >>> >>> followed by: >>> >>> "To get correct time we have to piss at >>> mad assertions of your mad religion." >>> >>> But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite. >> >> Unfortunately, only demonstrates >> to brainwashed fanatic idiots. >> >> >> >>> There are TWO quite distinct things: >>> >>> 1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock; >>> >>> 2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using >>> a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc. >>> >>> You've spent days conflating them. >>> >>> And the official specification is devastatingly explicit: >>> >>> "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ... >>> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." >> >> As said - rather ignorance than a lie. >> >> >> >>> and >>> >>> 10.2299999954326 MHz. >> >> That's what "would appear". The measurement result >> (direct comparing to the clock of the satellite) >> is 10.223. >> >> >>> So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times: >>> >>> Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate >>> -4.4647 x 10^-10? >>> >>> You already admitted: >>> >>> it doesn't. >>> >>> Your "Galilean rule" says only: >>> >>> CORRECT THE CLOCK! >> >> And this prediction is correct, while >> The Shit's prediction of "don't correct >> clocks, they are going to have different >> indications" - fails miserably. Common >> sense has been warning the idiot. > > Maciej, > > 10.223 MHz? > > Is that a typo? > > The nominal GPS frequency is 10.23 MHz, while the relativistically > pre-offset value is approximately > > 10.22999999543 MHz. Read your beloved specification more carefully, poor piece of shit. It says explicitly - that is what "would appear", not what is measured. It's not stated that the measurement is 10.223, but analyzing their measurement setup leaves no doubt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cSITpRrFL61QJLuTR4BGEZ-5ES4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674127 |
Ah. So 10.223 MHz was not a measurement after all.
You wrote:
"The measurement result
(direct comparing to the clock of the satellite)
is 10.223."
Now you say:
"It's not stated that the measurement is 10.223"
and that you obtained it by:
"analyzing their measurement setup"
Fine. Then show the analysis.
Because the specification actually says two different things:
1. The common source has nominal frequency 10.23 MHz
AS IT APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND.
2. The clock rate AS IT WOULD APPEAR TO AN OBSERVER
LOCATED IN THE SV is deliberately offset by
Delta f/f = -4.4647e-10
corresponding to
10.2299999954326 MHz.
That is exactly what the document says.
The words "as they would appear" are not saying:
"This is an imaginary relativistic prediction,
contradicted by the actual measurement."
They specify the observer/reference condition under which the quoted
frequency applies.
And absolutely nothing in that paragraph says:
actual measured satellite frequency = 10.223 MHz.
That number is yours.
So please derive it.
Start with the measurement setup you claim leaves "no doubt", write
down the relevant quantities, and calculate:
10.223 MHz.
This should be especially interesting because 10.223 MHz differs from
10.23 MHz by
7000 Hz,
whereas the frequency offset explicitly specified in the document is
0.0045674 Hz.
That's a discrepancy of roughly 1.5 million in the size of the effect.
So we've made useful progress:
First:
"The measurement result is 10.223."
Now:
"It's not stated that the measurement is 10.223."
Good.
We're down from a measurement to Maciej's inference about a measurement.
Show the inference.
No "mad religion".
No "common sense".
No semantic argument about "would appear".
Just the calculation that turns the actual GPS measurement procedure
into:
10.223 MHz.
The knob needs a number.
This time you've supplied the number.
Now supply the calculation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18daff7aedb607cf$85670$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674123 |
On 10/3/2026 12:04 PM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> >>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software >>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates do >>>> not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground clocks. >>> >>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy. >>> >>> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. >>> ================================================================ >>> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. >> >> Well, a lie, as expected from a piece of >> relativistic shit. >> >> >>> ================================================================ >>> >>> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs >>> off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. >>> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. >> >> Right, poor trash. To get correct time - >> we have to piss at mad assertions of >> your mad religion. > > Maciej, Paul has just given you the distinction you've been avoiding for days. > > The raw satellite clock time is: > > t_SV It doesn't help The Shit at all, as it is not the time the idiot was babbling about too. > And before launch/operation the satellite clock rate itself has the > well-known fractional frequency offset > > -4.4647 x 10^-10 > > specifically to compensate for relativistic effects. They're effects, but they're not relativistic effects. > That isn't Paul's terminology. It is what the official GPS interface > specification says. > > Your response is: > > "lie" Nope. I've said it some times, it's rather ignorance of your mad liturgy than a lie. > > followed by: > > "To get correct time we have to piss at > mad assertions of your mad religion." > > But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, only demonstrates to brainwashed fanatic idiots. > There are TWO quite distinct things: > > 1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock; > > 2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using > a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc. > > You've spent days conflating them. > > And the official specification is devastatingly explicit: > > "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ... > are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." As said - rather ignorance than a lie. > and > > 10.2299999954326 MHz. That's what "would appear". The measurement result (direct comparing to the clock of the satellite) is 10.223. > So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times: > > Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate > -4.4647 x 10^-10? > > You already admitted: > > it doesn't. > > Your "Galilean rule" says only: > > CORRECT THE CLOCK! And this prediction is correct, while The Shit's prediction of "don't correct clocks, they are going to have different indications" - fails miserably. Common sense has been warning the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18db1cbe890e78f1$11317$16561$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674123 |
On Sat, 03 Oct 26 10:04:43 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2026 à 06:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/2/2026 11:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: <propaganda snipped> > followed by: > > "To get correct time we have to piss at > mad assertions of your mad religion." > > But Paul's description demonstrates exactly the opposite. > > There are TWO quite distinct things: > > 1. the deliberate systematic frequency offset of the SV clock; > > 2. correction of its remaining ordinary clock error using > a_f0, a_f1, a_f2, etc. > > You've spent days conflating them. > > And the official specification is devastatingly explicit: Of course, the whole top brass of Physics consists of Einstein addicts like yourself. hahahaaha! > "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates ... > are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." > > It then gives: > > Delta f/f = -4.4647 x 10^-10 > > and > > 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > So we're back to the question you have now snipped several times: > > Where does YOUR Galilean theory calculate -4.4647 x 10^-10? You will find the answer in my book..but I will give you a preview. ....and the GR figure is actually ~5.25e-10 when the mythical 'velocity component' is added. Einsteiniana produced that figure by prohibiting the speed increase of free falling EM. Its way out was to make its equally mythical 'frequency' increase in the same proportion. For GPS it does that by increasing the rates of the SVs. Newton produces that same figure with REAL physics.. ************** Calculation of the speed increase (v) of a falling GPS signal: Earth's mass = M, radius = R, clock height = h. Photon mass =m Assume Loss of PE = gain in KE.................(1) Integrating gravitational force: GMm(1/R-1/h) Let x = (1/R-1/h) For GPS: R = 6 378 000 mtr h = 26,560 000 mtr x= 20 182 000 / 169.39e12 x = 1.19e-7 For Earth, GM = 6.67384e-11 * 5.9742e24 = 39.87e13 Photon KE increase = 1/2m(c+v)2 - 1/2mc2 = ~mvc From (1) GMm*1.19e-7 = cvm ' light presumed mass cancels. v = 39.87e13*1.19e-7/c fractional increase= 4.74e7/c^2. = ~5.27e-10 ********* > You already admitted: > > it doesn't. > > Your "Galilean rule" says only: > > CORRECT THE CLOCK! > > Paul has now shown you the actual engineering. > > The engineers need to know: > > CORRECT IT BY HOW MUCH? > > And there, once again, Galileo suddenly goes silent. It is corrected empirically by just as much as required. How is it that the Russian and Chinese equivalents do not include Einstein? > So your rebuttal to the actual GPS specification is now essentially: > > GPS engineers: > We offset the clock rate by -4.4647e-10 to compensate for > relativistic effects. > > Maciej: > No you don't. That's Galilean. > > GPS engineers: > Here is the exact number. > > Maciej: > GALILEAN! > > GPS engineers: > Can Galilean physics calculate it? > > Maciej: > No. > > At some point, Maciej, shouting the name "Galileo" over somebody else's > calculation stops qualifying as an alternative theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sYzVPO61yWk8UKexHwJU6qaGxaE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674154 |
Ralph,
There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll
give it to you.
If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then
1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi
gives
v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi)
and therefore, to first order,
Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10.
So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately
the same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational
frequency shift.
That isn't the problem.
The problem is your leap from
"I reproduced one first-order number"
to
"therefore this is REAL physics and relativity is mythology."
The same potential parameter Delta_Phi/c^2 appearing in two weak-field
calculations is not much of a miracle.
Now make your model earn its keep.
Give the propagation law generally, not just for radial falling toward
Earth, and calculate an independent observable.
For example:
1. solar light deflection;
2. Shapiro delay.
Those are particularly useful because a Newtonian corpuscular model
does NOT generally reproduce the relativistic answers merely by
getting Delta_Phi/c^2 right in this GPS calculation.
And this:
"How is it that the Russian and Chinese equivalents
do not include Einstein?"
is simply false for China.
The official BeiDou Signal-In-Space Interface Control Document gives
Delta_t_sv =
a0 + a1(t-t_oc) + a2(t-t_oc)^2 + Delta_t_r
and explicitly calls Delta_t_r:
"the relativistic correction term".
Another official BeiDou specification says explicitly:
"the relativity correction has to be applied"
and gives the corresponding formula.
So apparently the Chinese engineers have also been infiltrated by the
"top brass of Physics".
Perhaps Einsteiniana has reached Beijing.
But let's leave theology aside, because your calculation gives us
something much more useful.
You now have an explicit alternative model.
Excellent.
Please use it to calculate the deflection of a light ray grazing the
Sun.
Not "approximately".
Not "the same parameter appears".
Not "read my book".
Give the angle.
GR gives approximately:
1.75 arcseconds.
The elementary Newtonian corpuscular calculation gives approximately:
0.87 arcseconds.
What does the Henry Wilson model give?
That comparison would tell us considerably more than reproducing one
first-order GPS number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dc0a5514caa782$13548$16561$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674165 |
On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > > There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll > give it to you. > > If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then > > 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi > > gives > > v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) > > and therefore, to first order, > > Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. > > So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the > same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency > shift. It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in different ways and with different interpretations...which is why I say the two can live to some extent in parallel. > That isn't the problem. > > The problem is your leap from > > "I reproduced one first-order number" > > to > > "therefore this is REAL physics and relativity is mythology." > > The same potential parameter Delta_Phi/c^2 appearing in two weak-field > calculations is not much of a miracle. > > Now make your model earn its keep. > > Give the propagation law generally, not just for radial falling toward > Earth, and calculate an independent observable. > > For example: > > 1. solar light deflection; > 2. Shapiro delay. > > Those are particularly useful because a Newtonian corpuscular model does > NOT generally reproduce the relativistic answers merely by getting > Delta_Phi/c^2 right in this GPS calculation. > > And this: > > "How is it that the Russian and Chinese equivalents > do not include Einstein?" > > is simply false for China. > > The official BeiDou Signal-In-Space Interface Control Document gives > > Delta_t_sv = > a0 + a1(t-t_oc) + a2(t-t_oc)^2 + Delta_t_r > > and explicitly calls Delta_t_r: > > "the relativistic correction term". > > Another official BeiDou specification says explicitly: > > "the relativity correction has to be applied" > > and gives the corresponding formula. > > So apparently the Chinese engineers have also been infiltrated by the > "top brass of Physics". > > Perhaps Einsteiniana has reached Beijing. > > But let's leave theology aside, because your calculation gives us > something much more useful. > > You now have an explicit alternative model. > > Excellent. > > Please use it to calculate the deflection of a light ray grazing the > Sun. > > Not "approximately". > Not "the same parameter appears". > Not "read my book". > > Give the angle. > > GR gives approximately: > > 1.75 arcseconds. > > The elementary Newtonian corpuscular calculation gives approximately: > > 0.87 arcseconds. > > What does the Henry Wilson model give? Oh dear, I feel sorry that you are so out of date. Equations are OUT, Simulations are IN...and I just happen to have written a program that simulates the bending of light by the sun. Solar radius = 'rad' Some results: For both emitter and receiver at 2500 rad, (virtual infinity), the figure is .8796 for a ray that starts at precisely 0.0001 rad off the LOS and sends a ray that is initially parallel to it. It passes the sun at a heighyt of 0.000098 rad. For a similar ray starting at 0.01 from the LOS, the deflection is ~.871 at 0.01 rad height. Deflection is naturally dependent on the height at which it passes the sun. Earth is only 261 rad from the sun. For a ray from virtual infinity, the bending is still very close to .8796. For one sent and received only 5 rads on either side. the figure is down to .863, showing that ~98% of bending occurs during that small distance. If you want o know more you can run the program from this site. which is not labelled secure but certainly is: http:/www.ralfslab.net/programs/ deflection.exe. It needs Windows, sorry. Run it on an old computer. > That comparison would tell us considerably more than reproducing one > first-order GPS number. If Einstein's factor of two turned out to be correct, which is very unlikely, it would mean that light's 'mechanical' mass was only half it gravitational mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <11a62d5$1fvh9$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674213 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll >> give it to you. >> >> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then >> >> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi >> >> gives >> >> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) >> >> and therefore, to first order, >> >> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. >> >> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the >> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency >> shift. > > It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in > different ways and with different interpretations... And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special situations. Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been explained to you). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <ed2cnalGbr8LClv3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674232 |
On 10/07/2026 11:18 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll >>> give it to you. >>> >>> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then >>> >>> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi >>> >>> gives >>> >>> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) >>> >>> and therefore, to first order, >>> >>> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. >>> >>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the >>> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency >>> shift. >> >> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in >> different ways and with different interpretations... > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > situations. > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > explained to you). > How's that now? The geodesy of Einstein is always continuously evaluated instantaneously everywhere, for it to be in effect. That the solar system doesn't fly right apart, and that the force vector of "gravity" always points at the source where it _is_ in the geodesy not its "image" as delayed by light speed, is common knowledge and says you're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18dc759f9d372f9f$144807$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674232 |
On 10/7/2026 8:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll >>> give it to you. >>> >>> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then >>> >>> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi >>> >>> gives >>> >>> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) >>> >>> and therefore, to first order, >>> >>> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. >>> >>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the >>> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency >>> shift. >> >> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in >> different ways and with different interpretations... > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > situations. > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > explained to you). > And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web