Re: Nobody understands relativity

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Nobody understands relativity
Date	2026-06-07 21:48 -0700
Organization	The Starmaker Organization
Message-ID	<6A2649AC.5BE7@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
References	<1100uil$1ocdk$1@dont-email.me> <1101nvd$20vmu$1@dont-email.me> <1101s33$20m41$1@dont-email.me> <1103kbl$2fj1p$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> Den 06.06.2026 21:23, skrev Julio Di Egidio:
> > On 06/06/2026 20:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> Nothing shrinks or slows down aboard that ship:
> >>
> >> Obviously!
> >> Everybody who understands relativity knows this.
> 
> Any particular reason why you snipped this?
> 
> |   The state of motion of an observer cannot affect the observed
> |   object in any way, but it can affect the observer's observations
> |   of the observed object.
> |
> | An observer who is moving relative to an object will
> | measure the object to be shorter that its proper length.
> | The object is unaffected and is not shortened.
> | An observer who is moving relative to a clock will measure
> | the rate of the clock to be slower than its proper rate.
> | The clock is unaffected and runs at its proper rate.
> 
> >
> > Cool, still I see mangled diagrams and analysis, and only
> > mangled diagrams and analysis all over the place, always just
> > showing one side of the coin and not even the whole of it:
> > up to quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity because
> > in relativity there is no absolute time, which is utter nonsense.
> > That's the point.
> 
> You are obviously very ignorant.
> QED!
> 
> If you think that it is something like "absolute time"
> you will stay confused for ever.
> 
> >
> >>> And here is the blue pill, for those who can still read:
> >>> <https://jp-diegidio.github.io/STUDY.Physics.SpecialRelativity/
> >>> content/InertialFrames/doc.html>
> >>>
> >>> To put it charitably...
> >>
> >> If you had written a readable paper, I could have told you where
> >> you go wrong.
> >
> > You are just lying now: or you too cannot even read,
> > assuming you know any physics at all.
> 
> Your - whatever you call it - is unreadable gobbledegook.
> 
> >
> > Julio
> >
> 
> You did obviously not read this:
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> 
> Don't try to read it. You will not understand it.
> 
> But maybe you can answer the following question:
> 
> SI-clock = an atomic clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
> 
> Facts:
> An SI-clock in GPS orbit measures one orbit to last 43082.045269235 s.
> An SI-clock at the geoid measures one orbit to last 43082.045250000 s.
> The difference is 19.235 Î¼s.
> 
> Is any of the two times correct "absolute time"?
> If yeas, which one?
> If no, what is the correct "absolute time" of an orbit,
> and how do you measure it?
> 
> I predict that you will not even try to answer the question.
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

This is the intellectual equivalent of waving a stopwatch at Einstein
and declaring relativity "confusing" while missing the entire point of
spacetime.

1. **There is no "absolute time" you pathetic pre-1905 relic**  
   Your entire setup assumes some Platonic "correct absolute time of an
orbit" exists that SI-clocks should report. Special and general
relativity demolished that fantasy over a century ago. Proper time (what
an atomic clock actually measures along its worldline) is
path-dependent. The geoid clock and orbital clock follow different
worldlines in curved spacetime; their accumulated proper times *must*
differ. Demanding one "absolute" number is like asking which twin is
older after the twin paradox without specifying the inertial frame or
paths. Delusional.

2. **The SI second is defined locally via proper time, not some cosmic
referee**  
   The SI second is realized by cesium hyperfine transitions in the
*rest frame of the clock* at the geoid (by convention and definition).
It's not a claim to universal simultaneity. Your "facts" correctly show
the *difference* (~19.235 µs per orbit due to gravitational blueshift
dominating velocity redshift), but then you treat this as a paradox
exposing failure. It's the predicted, measured, and corrected feature of
GPS.

3. **You confuse coordinate time with proper time like a freshman who
skimmed the Wikipedia intro**  
   GPS uses a coordinate time (e.g., in the Earth-Centered Inertial
frame) for synchronization, with explicit relativistic corrections
applied to satellite clocks (pre-corrected by ~38 µs/day net). Neither
raw reading is the "absolute" orbit duration; both are valid proper
times. Your question "which one is correct absolute time?" reveals you
don't understand that coordinate time is a useful fiction, not reality's
stopwatch.

4. **Missing the engineering reality that makes this work daily**  
   Billions of GPS receivers function because engineers account for
exactly this. If your "idea" were right, GPS would drift by kilometers
per day. It doesn't. The difference is not a crisis for SI
definitions—it's a triumph of applied relativity.

You assume without evidence that "absolute time of an orbit" is a
coherent concept independent of reference frames or worldlines. You
smuggle in Newtonian absolute time as the unspoken referee. You pretend
SI definitions claim universality rather than a standardized local
realization. Fairy-tale premise: physics owes you a single privileged
clock reading for every event.

Physicists and metrologists have zero incentive to indulge this. They
built working systems (GPS, Galileo, atomic time scales like TAI) that
treat proper time and corrections as routine. Competitors (actual
researchers) would mock this as 101-level misunderstanding. Regulators
and standards bodies (BIPM) define SI precisely to avoid your vague
"absolute" nonsense, not chase it.

At relativistic scales this "problem" is trivial and solved. GPS
satellites experience ~38 µs/day net gain; corrections are applied
continuously. Your numbers are order-of-magnitude correct but weaponized
against understanding instead of illustrating it. Trying to scale this
"gotcha" to cosmology or fundamental physics fails harder—clocks
disagree by design in curved spacetime. No experiment has ever found
your implied absolute time; all confirm frame-dependence.

- The entire framing that different proper times imply a crisis for SI
definitions or "absolute time."  
- Any assumption of Newtonian absolute time lurking in the background.  
- The question "which one is correct absolute time?"—replace with "what
coordinate system and corrections are needed for synchronization?"  
- The naive presentation pretending this is profound rather than
textbook relativity.

Stop. This isn't a deep challenge to time—it's a shallow
misunderstanding of relativity cosplaying as philosophy. Physics moved
on; your idea should too, preferably into the trash.

Now I know why the Mafia got into the garbage business...there is soo
much trash here.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Thread

Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 12:59 +0200
  Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:07 +0000
  Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-06 20:19 +0200
    Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-06 21:23 +0200
      Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 16:57 -0700
      Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:13 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 08:25 -0700
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:06 -0700
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:21 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:50 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 09:59 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:46 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-09 13:41 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:15 -0700
      Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:30 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-06-07 13:37 +0200
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-07 11:40 +0000
          Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:58 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-06-08 10:17 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:43 -0700
        Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-07 21:48 -0700
          Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 07:41 +0200
            Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 09:50 +0200
              Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 10:46 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-08 19:16 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-08 19:42 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 16:54 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 07:34 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:59 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:06 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:22 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 20:55 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 10:32 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 11:00 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 20:56 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 21:01 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:46 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-09 22:03 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:10 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:22 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:31 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 07:40 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-09 21:05 +0200
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 08:39 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 14:53 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 18:20 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 20:48 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:13 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 08:42 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-10 22:54 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-12 13:39 -0700
                Re: Nobody understands relativity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:05 -0700
    Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-06 21:24 +0200
      Re: Nobody understands relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-07 13:45 +0200
        Re: Nobody understands relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-07 15:14 +0200
  Re: Nobody understands relativity nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-07 10:54 +0200

csiph-web