Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672052
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not |
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:29 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <115o4sd$2temf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <18cb6a028545e04b$2005021$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <TH_DRb9yw8D96-lcckkvoEr5hM8@jntp> <18cb6bf476a7ff9b$2005025$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <kLaUECauI1WKS2TyloJbgA7vZYk@jntp> <18cb9744ffc062ac$2021508$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
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. [...]
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 17:55 +0200
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
csiph-web