On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of >>>>> 0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of >>>>>> 0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some
point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having ticked at yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about 2.7% longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are
sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming that the meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's rotation proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to
the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some
point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>>>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having ticked at
yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about 2.7%
longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are
sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming that the
meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's rotation
proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to
the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a
definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some
point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some
point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>>>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the
length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>> your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by
the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is certainly... original.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
On 8/10/2026 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>>> your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by
the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is
certainly... original.
We're not discussing SI, we're discussing
what a second is.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting the
Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
And, unfortunately, it fucks your ideological
idiocy. The second used in metrology - TAI/GPS
second - has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods
on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Your utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has failed.
The game is over, and you lost. Common sense
may be just a collection of prejudices. But
it still controls how clocks are set, pissing
at the commands of your mad religion. Face
it.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 20:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to >>>>>>>> get your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by >>>>> the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is
certainly... original.
We're not discussing SI, we're discussing
what a second is.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting
the Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
And, unfortunately, it fucks your ideological
idiocy. The second used in metrology - TAI/GPS
second - has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods
on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Your-a utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
The game is over, and you lost. Common sense
may be just a collection of prejudices. But
it still controls how clocks are set, pissing
at the commands of your mad religion. Face
it.
Maciej,
You have just illustrated the very confusion I was talking about.
You write:
"The TAI/GPS second has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth
and about 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite."
No.
The SI definition is local.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>> your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having ticked at >>> yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about 2.7%
longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are
sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming that the >>> meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's rotation
proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to
the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a
definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Ross,
Thank you.
I had somehow overlooked the Polaricentric Revolution.
History is indeed full of them.
First came the Ptolemaic Revolution.
Then the Copernican Revolution.
Then the Einstein Revolution.
And now, fortunately, the Polaris Revolution.
One can only wonder what comes next.
Perhaps the Coffee-Machine-Centric Revolution, where time is defined by
the interval between two espressos.
Or the Refrigerator-Centric Revolution, where the speed of light is
exactly twice the closing speed of the kitchen door.
As for the "galactic day", I fear we have only moved the question one
level up.
Why the Galaxy?
Why not Andromeda?
Why not the Local Group?
Why not Laniakea?
Why not the Cosmic Microwave Background?
Or perhaps, to avoid future revisions, we should simply define the
second by the rotational period of Ross.
That would have the advantage of being self-consistent.
Until the next revolution, of course.
In the meantime, metrology has settled on a much less poetic approach:
pick a reproducible physical process,
count enough cycles,
and let galaxies continue doing whatever galaxies do.
It is admittedly less romantic.
But GPS seems oddly grateful for the choice.
On 8/10/2026 8:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 20:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to >>>>>>>>> get your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of >>>>>>>>>>> a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined
by the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is
certainly... original.
We're not discussing SI, we're discussing
what a second is.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting
the Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
And, unfortunately, it fucks your ideological
idiocy. The second used in metrology - TAI/GPS
second - has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods
on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Your-a utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
The game is over, and you lost. Common sense
may be just a collection of prejudices. But
it still controls how clocks are set, pissing
at the commands of your mad religion. Face
it.
Maciej,
You have just illustrated the very confusion I was talking about.
You write:
"The TAI/GPS second has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth
and about 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite."
No.
The SI definition is local.
SI definition is. And the REAL measurements
fuck it. Common sense has been warning the
idiots from your bunch of idiots.
On 8/10/2026 8:27 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/10/2026 8:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 20:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to >>>>>>>>>> get your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of >>>>>>>>>>>> a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is >>>>>>> defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined >>>>>>> by the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is
certainly... original.
We're not discussing SI, we're discussing
what a second is.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting
the Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
And, unfortunately, it fucks your ideological
idiocy. The second used in metrology - TAI/GPS
second - has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods
on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Your-a utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
The game is over, and you lost. Common sense
may be just a collection of prejudices. But
it still controls how clocks are set, pissing
at the commands of your mad religion. Face
it.
Maciej,
You have just illustrated the very confusion I was talking about.
You write:
"The TAI/GPS second has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth
and about 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite."
No.
The SI definition is local.
SI definition is. And the REAL measurements
fuck it. Common sense has been warning the
idiots from your bunch of idiots.
Metrology fucks your utterly ignorant
opinion of what it should do. Face it,
poor piece of shit.
And "relativistic" correctios? ROTFL. Your
bunch of idiots was trying to FORBID
them for the sake of sick, mumbled
delusions of a madman. With no success.
Of course.
On 08/10/2026 10:05 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>>> your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined >>>> by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the >>>> length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having ticked at >>>> yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about 2.7% >>>> longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are
sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical definitions >>>> are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming that the >>>> meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's rotation >>>> proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to
the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a
definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Ross,
Thank you.
I had somehow overlooked the Polaricentric Revolution.
History is indeed full of them.
First came the Ptolemaic Revolution.
Then the Copernican Revolution.
Then the Einstein Revolution.
And now, fortunately, the Polaris Revolution.
One can only wonder what comes next.
Perhaps the Coffee-Machine-Centric Revolution, where time is defined by
the interval between two espressos.
Or the Refrigerator-Centric Revolution, where the speed of light is
exactly twice the closing speed of the kitchen door.
As for the "galactic day", I fear we have only moved the question one
level up.
Why the Galaxy?
Why not Andromeda?
Why not the Local Group?
Why not Laniakea?
Why not the Cosmic Microwave Background?
Or perhaps, to avoid future revisions, we should simply define the
second by the rotational period of Ross.
That would have the advantage of being self-consistent.
Until the next revolution, of course.
In the meantime, metrology has settled on a much less poetic approach:
pick a reproducible physical process,
count enough cycles,
and let galaxies continue doing whatever galaxies do.
It is admittedly less romantic.
But GPS seems oddly grateful for the choice.
Einstein makes a great defense of Newton
before going about a great attack.
This way, when he's later shown incomplete,
since Einstein knew he was talking about partials
and approximations in his popular formalisms
yet was well-known to be making for accounts
of the total and absolute in his own personal theory,
or so he said, then he's not having simply torn
himself down by his own words.
Then at least the "polaricentric"
is its own sort of contradiction in terms and
knackbaut of a final sort of theory. I.e.,
it's a final sort of turnaround.
The GPS station-keeping manual is an entirely
different document than the GPS receiver manual.
Space-time may curve, it's not discontinuous.
Entropy, then for information, like when is coffee,
has that its definition is from at least four fields,
stochastics and probability and signals and language,
the definition itself falls apart in a deconstructive account,
about which many are content "don't care", yet of course
that various conscientious logicians quite thoroughly care.
Le 10/08/2026 |a 22:07, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 10:05 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>>>> your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by
the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having
ticked at
yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about
2.7%
longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are >>>>> sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical
definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming
that the
meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's
rotation
proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to >>>>> the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a
definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Ross,
Thank you.
I had somehow overlooked the Polaricentric Revolution.
History is indeed full of them.
First came the Ptolemaic Revolution.
Then the Copernican Revolution.
Then the Einstein Revolution.
And now, fortunately, the Polaris Revolution.
One can only wonder what comes next.
Perhaps the Coffee-Machine-Centric Revolution, where time is defined by
the interval between two espressos.
Or the Refrigerator-Centric Revolution, where the speed of light is
exactly twice the closing speed of the kitchen door.
As for the "galactic day", I fear we have only moved the question one
level up.
Why the Galaxy?
Why not Andromeda?
Why not the Local Group?
Why not Laniakea?
Why not the Cosmic Microwave Background?
Or perhaps, to avoid future revisions, we should simply define the
second by the rotational period of Ross.
That would have the advantage of being self-consistent.
Until the next revolution, of course.
In the meantime, metrology has settled on a much less poetic approach:
pick a reproducible physical process,
count enough cycles,
and let galaxies continue doing whatever galaxies do.
It is admittedly less romantic.
But GPS seems oddly grateful for the choice.
Einstein makes a great defense of Newton
before going about a great attack.
This way, when he's later shown incomplete,
since Einstein knew he was talking about partials
and approximations in his popular formalisms
yet was well-known to be making for accounts
of the total and absolute in his own personal theory,
or so he said, then he's not having simply torn
himself down by his own words.
Then at least the "polaricentric"
is its own sort of contradiction in terms and
knackbaut of a final sort of theory. I.e.,
it's a final sort of turnaround.
The GPS station-keeping manual is an entirely
different document than the GPS receiver manual.
Space-time may curve, it's not discontinuous.
Entropy, then for information, like when is coffee,
has that its definition is from at least four fields,
stochastics and probability and signals and language,
the definition itself falls apart in a deconstructive account,
about which many are content "don't care", yet of course
that various conscientious logicians quite thoroughly care.
Ross,
I'm afraid we've now reached peak topic drift.
I joked about your "polaricentric revolution".
You replied with:
* Newton,
* Einstein's supposed "personal theory",
* GPS station-keeping manuals,
* GPS receiver manuals,
* curved space-time,
* entropy,
* information theory,
* probability,
* language,
* and coffee.
Interesting topics, all of them.
None of them answers the question I asked.
My question was extremely simple:
Why should a "galactic day" define the second rather than any other astronomical period?
You have not answered it.
Instead, the discussion keeps expanding until it contains astronomy, cosmology, relativity, information theory and linguistics simultaneously.
That is not a synthesis.
It is topic inflation.
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Not with an ever-growing collection of analogies.
Otherwise, "polaricentric" risks becoming less a scientific concept than
a literary genre.
As for GPS station-keeping versus receiver manuals, I confess I have no
idea what point you intended to make.
Perhaps, in the next episode of the Polaricentric Revolution, that
mystery will also be revealed.
On 08/10/2026 04:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 22:07, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 10:05 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get >>>>>>>>> your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by >>>>>> the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly
different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having
ticked at
yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about >>>>>> 2.7%
longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer.
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they are >>>>>> sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical
definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming
that the
meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's
rotation
proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to >>>>>> the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a >>>>>> definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Ross,
Thank you.
I had somehow overlooked the Polaricentric Revolution.
History is indeed full of them.
First came the Ptolemaic Revolution.
Then the Copernican Revolution.
Then the Einstein Revolution.
And now, fortunately, the Polaris Revolution.
One can only wonder what comes next.
Perhaps the Coffee-Machine-Centric Revolution, where time is defined by >>>> the interval between two espressos.
Or the Refrigerator-Centric Revolution, where the speed of light is
exactly twice the closing speed of the kitchen door.
As for the "galactic day", I fear we have only moved the question one
level up.
Why the Galaxy?
Why not Andromeda?
Why not the Local Group?
Why not Laniakea?
Why not the Cosmic Microwave Background?
Or perhaps, to avoid future revisions, we should simply define the
second by the rotational period of Ross.
That would have the advantage of being self-consistent.
Until the next revolution, of course.
In the meantime, metrology has settled on a much less poetic approach: >>>>
pick a reproducible physical process,
count enough cycles,
and let galaxies continue doing whatever galaxies do.
It is admittedly less romantic.
But GPS seems oddly grateful for the choice.
Einstein makes a great defense of Newton
before going about a great attack.
This way, when he's later shown incomplete,
since Einstein knew he was talking about partials
and approximations in his popular formalisms
yet was well-known to be making for accounts
of the total and absolute in his own personal theory,
or so he said, then he's not having simply torn
himself down by his own words.
Then at least the "polaricentric"
is its own sort of contradiction in terms and
knackbaut of a final sort of theory. I.e.,
it's a final sort of turnaround.
The GPS station-keeping manual is an entirely
different document than the GPS receiver manual.
Space-time may curve, it's not discontinuous.
Entropy, then for information, like when is coffee,
has that its definition is from at least four fields,
stochastics and probability and signals and language,
the definition itself falls apart in a deconstructive account,
about which many are content "don't care", yet of course
that various conscientious logicians quite thoroughly care.
Ross,
I'm afraid we've now reached peak topic drift.
I joked about your "polaricentric revolution".
You replied with:
* Newton,
* Einstein's supposed "personal theory",
* GPS station-keeping manuals,
* GPS receiver manuals,
* curved space-time,
* entropy,
* information theory,
* probability,
* language,
* and coffee.
Interesting topics, all of them.
None of them answers the question I asked.
My question was extremely simple:
Why should a "galactic day" define the second rather than any other
astronomical period?
You have not answered it.
Instead, the discussion keeps expanding until it contains astronomy,
cosmology, relativity, information theory and linguistics simultaneously.
That is not a synthesis.
It is topic inflation.
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise
definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Not with an ever-growing collection of analogies.
Otherwise, "polaricentric" risks becoming less a scientific concept than
a literary genre.
As for GPS station-keeping versus receiver manuals, I confess I have no
idea what point you intended to make.
Perhaps, in the next episode of the Polaricentric Revolution, that
mystery will also be revealed.
The answer is what defines "time" and "clocks",
vis-a-vis, the gnat-span of a typical existence.
Some time ago, for example, here, there were defined
at least three kinds of clocks, atomic clocks,
quasar clocks, and another kind. Einstein has
two watches yet not two kinds of clocks.
Then, for a tetrad of quantities, there's light's speed
and there are neutron's lifetimes, one too fast to see,
the other too slow, though, light had to be included in
the same theory otherwise as mass and charge, filling out
a tetrad of quantities in space-time, about energy and
configuration of experiment.
Various effects at various energies and configurations of
experiment, help go to show that first of all: the modern
and classical account of of _kinetics_ starts to lost itself
beyond the 2'nd order, momentum is lost in the wash and un-defined,
the mechanics of spinning bodies Galileo says nothing about except
as about rigid connections, and neither does Einstein, though at
the end of "Out of My Later Years" Einstein writes a new equation
for E, that's based on the "centrally symmetric" as about
distinguishing the linear and rotational.
So, here's an experiment, put a linac of unchanged particles
and a cyclotron atop each other, variously turn them on and
off, and _any_ event falsifies both the theory without real space-contraction, and, the theory without distinction between real space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational.
Then, for "occult Fresnel", and that light and electromagnetic
radiation are two different kinds of radiation, again there's
"room in the theory" since there's both "room in the formalism"
and "room in the data", to make for that light is "pure diffraction
where its image/signal is summatorily decoherence" while radio is
"compounded refraction where its image/signal is summatorily coherence",
then for that various accounts showing that light
is not affected by radio and vice-versa already gives grounds
for falsifying the usual account.
Then, this account of the "polaricentric", has simply to
notice that over time Polaris is always directly North.
Then, for example, Olbers' sky has some explanations
for what look like stars.
On 08/10/2026 05:43 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/10/2026 04:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 22:07, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 10:05 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 08/10/2026 08:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to >>>>>>>>>> get
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some >>>>>>>>>>>>> point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a >>>>>>>>>>>> solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>>>
your
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is
defined
by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by >>>>>>> the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly >>>>>>> different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
GPS would become an exciting daily adventure.
Atomic clocks would have to apologize every morning for having
ticked at
yesterday's rate.
Even better, on Mars the "real second" would suddenly become about >>>>>>> 2.7%
longer, while on the Moon it would be almost thirty times longer. >>>>>>>
Apparently, cesium atoms are expected to notice which planet they >>>>>>> are
sitting on.
The SI second was introduced precisely because astronomical
definitions
are not stable enough for modern metrology.
Days are measured in seconds.
Seconds are not measured in days.
Confusing a unit with the quantity it measures is like claiming
that the
meter is defined by the height of your garden fence.
Entertaining, perhaps.
Convincing? Not so much :-)
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's
rotation
proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going
back to
the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a >>>>>>> definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
"Defined by the day" is a bit truncated,
"defined by the galactic day" is a bit less truncated.
Thousands of years ago, there was the "Ptolemaic revolution",
when the model of the world, went from flat, to round,
and the Earth as the center of the universe, about immobile
celestial spheres and epicycles. So, this is the "geocentric".
Hundreds of years ago, there was the "Copernican revolution",
when the model of the world, went from being the center,
to revolving around the sun, the "heliocentric". Then,
epicycles got considered as orbits, and planets or the
wandering stars got a better model in this sort of way.
So, these days, about Polaris and Regulus, or ideas of
the Pole Star and the star (or its images) at the center
of the galaxy, now there can be a "Polaricentric revolution",
since like the Earth is under the moment arm of the Sun,
the Sun is under the moment arm of the pole star, then
that that's multi-pole up to the center of the galaxy
and the local cluster and the jet and LaniaKea and so on,
the "polaricentric", which is sort of a contradiction seemingly
in words, since poles are antipodal about the centric, yet,
it's a neat seeming reflection on what the reality is,
about the point, local, global, and total.
Then, there really are at least three definitions of clocks,
and light's speed, on Earth, really is simply twice the
drift speed of Earth in the space of the polaricentric.
Then, at some point "Flat-Earthers" meant reductionists
who'd truncated the long tail and called it complete.
Then in the common language it means backward types.
Flat-Earth, wheel
^- Ptolemaic, epicycles
^- Copernican, orbits
^- polaricentric, drift
Get the drift.
Ross,
Thank you.
I had somehow overlooked the Polaricentric Revolution.
History is indeed full of them.
First came the Ptolemaic Revolution.
Then the Copernican Revolution.
Then the Einstein Revolution.
And now, fortunately, the Polaris Revolution.
One can only wonder what comes next.
Perhaps the Coffee-Machine-Centric Revolution, where time is
defined by
the interval between two espressos.
Or the Refrigerator-Centric Revolution, where the speed of light is
exactly twice the closing speed of the kitchen door.
As for the "galactic day", I fear we have only moved the question one >>>>> level up.
Why the Galaxy?
Why not Andromeda?
Why not the Local Group?
Why not Laniakea?
Why not the Cosmic Microwave Background?
Or perhaps, to avoid future revisions, we should simply define the
second by the rotational period of Ross.
That would have the advantage of being self-consistent.
Until the next revolution, of course.
In the meantime, metrology has settled on a much less poetic approach: >>>>>
pick a reproducible physical process,
count enough cycles,
and let galaxies continue doing whatever galaxies do.
It is admittedly less romantic.
But GPS seems oddly grateful for the choice.
Einstein makes a great defense of Newton
before going about a great attack.
This way, when he's later shown incomplete,
since Einstein knew he was talking about partials
and approximations in his popular formalisms
yet was well-known to be making for accounts
of the total and absolute in his own personal theory,
or so he said, then he's not having simply torn
himself down by his own words.
Then at least the "polaricentric"
is its own sort of contradiction in terms and
knackbaut of a final sort of theory. I.e.,
it's a final sort of turnaround.
The GPS station-keeping manual is an entirely
different document than the GPS receiver manual.
Space-time may curve, it's not discontinuous.
Entropy, then for information, like when is coffee,
has that its definition is from at least four fields,
stochastics and probability and signals and language,
the definition itself falls apart in a deconstructive account,
about which many are content "don't care", yet of course
that various conscientious logicians quite thoroughly care.
Ross,
I'm afraid we've now reached peak topic drift.
I joked about your "polaricentric revolution".
You replied with:
* Newton,
* Einstein's supposed "personal theory",
* GPS station-keeping manuals,
* GPS receiver manuals,
* curved space-time,
* entropy,
* information theory,
* probability,
* language,
* and coffee.
Interesting topics, all of them.
None of them answers the question I asked.
My question was extremely simple:
Why should a "galactic day" define the second rather than any other
astronomical period?
You have not answered it.
Instead, the discussion keeps expanding until it contains astronomy,
cosmology, relativity, information theory and linguistics
simultaneously.
That is not a synthesis.
It is topic inflation.
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise
definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Not with an ever-growing collection of analogies.
Otherwise, "polaricentric" risks becoming less a scientific concept than >>> a literary genre.
As for GPS station-keeping versus receiver manuals, I confess I have no
idea what point you intended to make.
Perhaps, in the next episode of the Polaricentric Revolution, that
mystery will also be revealed.
The answer is what defines "time" and "clocks",
vis-a-vis, the gnat-span of a typical existence.
Some time ago, for example, here, there were defined
at least three kinds of clocks, atomic clocks,
quasar clocks, and another kind. Einstein has
two watches yet not two kinds of clocks.
Then, for a tetrad of quantities, there's light's speed
and there are neutron's lifetimes, one too fast to see,
the other too slow, though, light had to be included in
the same theory otherwise as mass and charge, filling out
a tetrad of quantities in space-time, about energy and
configuration of experiment.
Various effects at various energies and configurations of
experiment, help go to show that first of all: the modern
and classical account of of _kinetics_ starts to lost itself
beyond the 2'nd order, momentum is lost in the wash and un-defined,
the mechanics of spinning bodies Galileo says nothing about except
as about rigid connections, and neither does Einstein, though at
the end of "Out of My Later Years" Einstein writes a new equation
for E, that's based on the "centrally symmetric" as about
distinguishing the linear and rotational.
So, here's an experiment, put a linac of unchanged particles
and a cyclotron atop each other, variously turn them on and
off, and _any_ event falsifies both the theory without real
space-contraction, and, the theory without distinction between real
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational.
Then, for "occult Fresnel", and that light and electromagnetic
radiation are two different kinds of radiation, again there's
"room in the theory" since there's both "room in the formalism"
and "room in the data", to make for that light is "pure diffraction
where its image/signal is summatorily decoherence" while radio is
"compounded refraction where its image/signal is summatorily coherence",
then for that various accounts showing that light
is not affected by radio and vice-versa already gives grounds
for falsifying the usual account.
Then, this account of the "polaricentric", has simply to
notice that over time Polaris is always directly North.
Then, for example, Olbers' sky has some explanations
for what look like stars.
I don't necessarily believe in "jinx",
though since James Webb space telescope
has roundly paint-canned inflationary cosmolology,
the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope is going
to blow it wide open.
If that old Sea Dragon ain't too wore out, ....
Le 10/08/2026 |a 23:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 8:27 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/10/2026 8:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 20:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 5:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 >>>>>>>>>>> to get your
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some point of
0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meridian
again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> events as
86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a solar
day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them. >>>>>>>>>>>
second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is >>>>>>>> defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
And it is. The real second remains as it was
in 1905, also in your moronic church. Your
utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined >>>>>>>> by the length of the day.
Secretly? Get conscious, poor piece of shit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute".
The secret of what is a minute and an hour you can resolve
on your own. Can you? Or maybe you're too stupid even for that.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to care.
But you are. What a surprise.
Take a long term average, poor piece of shit.
As for your idiocy - it is simply unusable for
serious-a measurements. Anyone can check GPS.
Maciej,
Thank you.
Quoting the Cambridge Dictionary in a discussion about the SI is
certainly... original.
We're not discussing SI, we're discussing
what a second is.
By the same logic, we could settle quantum mechanics by consulting >>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary under "wave".
A dictionary describes how words are commonly used.
Metrology defines units.
And, unfortunately, it fucks your ideological
idiocy. The second used in metrology - TAI/GPS
second - has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods
on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Your-a utterly idiotic try of enforcing prophesied
by your mad guru pears growing on a willow -
by redefining a willow - has-a failed.
The game is over, and you lost. Common sense
may be just a collection of prejudices. But
it still controls how clocks are set, pissing
at the commands of your mad religion. Face
it.
Maciej,
You have just illustrated the very confusion I was talking about.
You write:
"The TAI/GPS second has 9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth
and about 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite."
No.
The SI definition is local.
SI definition is. And the REAL measurements
fuck it. Common sense has been warning the
idiots from your bunch of idiots.
Metrology fucks your utterly ignorant
opinion of what it should do. Face it,
poor piece of shit.
And "relativistic" correctios? ROTFL. Your
bunch of idiots was trying to FORBID
them for the sake of sick, mumbled
delusions of a madman. With no success.
Of course.
Talking to yourself?
Maciej,
You keep repeating "REAL measurements".
Fine.
Please quote one.
Not a dictionary.
Not an opinion.
Not an insult.
An actual metrology document.
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Not with an ever-growing collection of analogies.
Otherwise, "polaricentric" risks becoming less a scientific concept than
a literary genre.
As for GPS station-keeping versus receiver manuals, I confess I have no
idea what point you intended to make.
Perhaps, in the next episode of the Polaricentric Revolution, that
mystery will also be revealed.
Le 10/08/2026 a 16:36, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of >>>>>> 0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly different "real second".
Engineers would love that.
P.S. In fact, the SI second was introduced because the Earth's rotation proved too irregular to define a reliable unit of time. Going back to the solar day would not be a revolution. It would be a retreat to a definition that metrology abandoned decades ago.
Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
Le 10/08/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 8/10/2026 3:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> wrote:
Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 8/8/2026 7:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2026 19:50, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
So, ok. We have a solar day.
The time between 2 events: sun is shining vertically on some point of >>>>>>>> 0 meridian - sun is shining vertically on some point of 0 meridian >>>>>>>> again, after some time.
An observer on Earth is measuring the time between those events as >>>>>>>> 86400s.
An observer on the ground (geoid) will measure the length of a solar >>>>>>> day to be something between 86378s and 86430s.
That's right, poor trash - 86400s is absolutely between them.
ok, i give you guys a day, divide that by your number 86400 to get your >>>>> second, idiot. You dont have that second yet
what you say is
1 second = 1 day / 86400 seconds
idiot
Some idiots fail to notice that every other year or so
there is a day of 86401 seconds.
Some other idiots fail to notice that every year
there are days with 82800 and 90000 seconds.
It is needed to make up the difference
between a real observed day and 84600 SI seconds,
Nobody cares about your SI idiocy, even you
are not THAT stupid, Loddie. The real second
match your idiocy only on Earth.
Maciej,
Thank you for this revolutionary discovery.
For a while now, physicists have believed that the SI second is defined by >> the hyperfine transition of cesium-133.
You have now revealed that the "real second" is secretly defined by the
length of the day.
There is, however, a tiny inconvenience.
The solar day is not constant.
If your definition were adopted, every day would have a slightly different >> "real second".
Engineers would love that.
Fornunately they couldn't notice at once.
All communication is based nowadays on networks synchronised
to better than microseconds.
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise
definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise
definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial frame of
an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a precise >>>> definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial frame of
an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't
he?
Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
Engineers would love that.
Fornunately they couldn't notice at once.
All communication is based nowadays on networks synchronised
to better than microseconds.
On 8/11/2026 10:53 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Fornunately they couldn't notice at once.
All communication is based nowadays on networks synchronised to better
than microseconds.
For the sake of your mumbling madman your bunch of idiots has tried to
ruin that with your SI idiocy, but without any success.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with aAh, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
precise definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions. >>>>
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial frame
of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer moving
at c/2.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself".
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with aAh, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
precise definition, continue with equations, and end with predictions. >>>>>
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial frame
of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a
precise definition, continue with equations, and end with
predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial
frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer
moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical example.
When I wrote
-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a v = c/2
-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a a = 3,
-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a v = c/2
-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two
-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the Earth's frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time intervals in different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a >>>>>>>> precise definition, continue with equations, and end with
predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial
frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer
moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a v = c/2
-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a a = 3,
-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a v = c/2
-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical evaluation. >>
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself". >>>
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two
-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a >>>>>>>>> precise definition, continue with equations, and end with
predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial
frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer
moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical
evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of
itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial
frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two
-a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the Earth's >>> frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a >>>>>>>>>> precise definition, continue with equations, and end with >>>>>>>>>> predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial >>>>>>>> frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer >>>>>> moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical example. >>>
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical
evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of
itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial
frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two >>>> -a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the Earth's >>>> frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time intervals in >>>> different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a >>>>>>>>>>> precise definition, continue with equations, and end with >>>>>>>>>>> predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial >>>>>>>>> frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an
observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical
example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical
evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of
itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial
frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two >>>>> -a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the
Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between >>>>> the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with a >>>>>>>>>>>> precise definition, continue with equations, and end with >>>>>>>>>>>> predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial >>>>>>>>>> frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation.
On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an
observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical
example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number",
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical
evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of >>>>>>>> itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one inertial >>>>>> frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the same two >>>>>> -a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the
Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval between >>>>>> the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity. >>>>>>
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds.
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two
spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with >>>>>>>>>>>>> a precise definition, continue with equations, and end with >>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the
inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an
observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical
example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>>
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of >>>>>>>>> itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one
inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the
same two
-a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the >>>>>>> Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval
between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity. >>>>>>>
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two
spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a precise definition, continue with equations, and end with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by >>>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>> observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>> example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves.
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>>>
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of >>>>>>>>>> itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one
inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>> same two
-a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in the >>>>>>>> Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>> between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with relativity. >>>>>>>>
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two
spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
Python,
No.
You don't.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru
believed somehow that the result must be 99766.
Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying
that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his
intension... But I assume it wasn't.
Anyone can
check - the second used for serious measurements
is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774 on a
GPS satellite.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>> observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>>
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz
transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>> of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one
inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>> same two
-a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>> the Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>> between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with
relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
Python,
No.
You don't.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru
believed somehow-a that the result must be 99766.
Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying
that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his
intension... But I assume it wasn't.
Maciej,
No.
This is where your argument fails.
You write:
"the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval."
No.
That is simply false.
Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined
as
"1/86400 of the particular day being measured."
It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day
Maciej,
Let's forget the SI second entirely.
Consider two identical clocks.
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial frame
of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
Den 11.08.2026 17:04, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day
(1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction
of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the inertial
frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.
See, poor piece of shit - lying may look
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an observer
moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
So we can sum it up:
-aThe Special Theory of Relativity will not predict that
-aan observer who is crossing Solar System with the speed of c/2
-awill observe a mean solar day to be ~= 99766 s, because
-ano postulate of special relativity predicts that number,
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories...
so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are
separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
= 2/sqrt(3)
= 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>> observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
"No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>>
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
v = c/2
Delta t = 86400 s
gives
Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
"Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
a = 3,
b = 4
does one obtain
c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
v = c/2
Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz
transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>> of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one
inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>> same two
events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>> the Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>> between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time
intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with
relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two
spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
Python,
No.
You don't.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru
believed somehow that the result must be 99766.
Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying
that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his
intension... But I assume it wasn't.
Maciej,
No.
This is where your argument fails.
You write:
"the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval."
No.
That is simply false.
Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined
as
"1/86400 of the particular day being measured."
It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day, later the
ephemeris second, now the Cs-133 transition).
The unit is independent of the particular interval being measured.
Otherwise every measurement would be a tautology.
It would be like defining the metre as
"1/1000 of this particular stick"
and then claiming that measuring the stick must always give exactly
1000 metres.
That is not how metrology works.
The standard is independent of the object being measured.
Likewise, the interval between two solar noons is compared with an independent time standard.
Special relativity then predicts how the coordinates of those same two
events transform between inertial frames.
You keep replacing the actual experiment by a different one in which the measuring unit is defined from the very interval being measured.
That experiment is yours.
It is not the one used in metrology, and it is not the one described by special relativity.
On 08/11/2026 10:30 AM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
= 2/sqrt(3)
= 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
"No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>>>
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
v = c/2
Delta t = 86400 s
gives
Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
"Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5."
Indeed, it predicts
c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
a = 3,
b = 4
does one obtain
c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
v = c/2
Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz
transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>>> of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day. The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one
inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>>> same two
events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>>> the Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>>> between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time >>>>>>>>>> intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with
relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
Python,
No.
You don't.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru
believed somehow that the result must be 99766.
Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying
that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his
intension... But I assume it wasn't.
Maciej,
No.
This is where your argument fails.
You write:
"the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval."
No.
That is simply false.
Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined
as
"1/86400 of the particular day being measured."
It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day, later the
ephemeris second, now the Cs-133 transition).
The unit is independent of the particular interval being measured.
Otherwise every measurement would be a tautology.
It would be like defining the metre as
"1/1000 of this particular stick"
and then claiming that measuring the stick must always give exactly
1000 metres.
That is not how metrology works.
The standard is independent of the object being measured.
Likewise, the interval between two solar noons is compared with an
independent time standard.
Special relativity then predicts how the coordinates of those same two
events transform between inertial frames.
You keep replacing the actual experiment by a different one in which the
measuring unit is defined from the very interval being measured.
That experiment is yours.
It is not the one used in metrology, and it is not the one described by
special relativity.
If there's space-contraction, or, time-dilation or length-contraction,
then "length" and "distance" have different units.
Often about "metric" and "norm", "length" and "distance", usually
given in "meters", any account of either time-dilation or
length-contraction, in terms of velocities, means that both "metric" and "norm" make for different units, and, "length" and "distance"
have different units.
So, how long it takes the twin's bead of sweat to roll down his brow,
has that the other twin has a different norm and metric, the other's
metric and norm.
Then, they both respire at the same rate.
On 8/11/2026 7:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:24, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 19:01, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 6:23 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 17:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 15:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/11/2026 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 06:08, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 1:21 AM, Python wrote:On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
If your proposal is a physical theory, it should begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a precise definition, continue with equations, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end with predictions.
Ah, predictions. The duty of physical theories... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, an observer is crossing Solar System with
the speed of c/2. He's going to measure a solar day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1% of accuracy is enough). What is the prediction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of The Shit of your idiot guru for the result?
Is there any, poor piece of shit?
Maciej,
Sure.
Assuming you mean the coordinate-time interval in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame of an observer moving at
v = c/2,
and the two Earth events defining the solar day are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated by
Delta t = 86400 s
at the same place on Earth, special relativity gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
with
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v-#/c-#)
-a-a-a-a-a = 2/sqrt(3)
-a-a-a-a-a = 1.1547...
Therefore
Delta t' ~= 99766 s,
which is about
27 h 43 min.
So yes, there is a perfectly definite prediction.
And unlike "common sense", it even comes with an equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
See, poor piece of shit - lying may lookOne prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.
No.
No postulate of special relativity predicts that number. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
like a good idea when you're cornered, but
it's not. Lies have short legs. Particularly
when the one who lies is such a pathetic
idiot as you are.
So, your idiot guru mumbled that comparing a
solar day to 1/86400 of itself is going to
give 99766. Qed. What a great-a idiot, wasn't
he?
Maciej,
You are changing the question.
You asked for the prediction of special relativity for an >>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving
at c/2.
Sure. And you impudently lied that there is no.
Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop, so now you
admit: one of the predictions I asked is
as I've told.
You are still confusing a theory with one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> example.
You're still a stinking piece of lying shit,
And the mumble of your idiot guru is still
not even consistent.
When I wrote
-a-a-a "No postulate of special relativity predicts that number", >>>>>>>>>>
I meant exactly what the sentence says.
The postulates do not predict the number 99766 by themselves. >>>>>>>>>>
They lead to the Lorentz transformations.
Applying those transformations to the particular case
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
gives
-a-a-a Delta t' = 99766 s.
That is no contradiction whatsoever.
It is exactly like saying:
-a-a-a "Pythagoras' theorem does not predict the number 5." >>>>>>>>>>
Indeed, it predicts
-a-a-a c = sqrt(a-#+b-#),
and only for
-a-a-a a = 3,
-a-a-a b = 4
does one obtain
-a-a-a c = 5.
Likewise, special relativity predicts
-a-a-a Delta t' = gamma Delta t,
and only after substituting
-a-a-a v = c/2
-a-a-a Delta t = 86400 s
does one obtain
-a-a-a 99766 s.
A general law is not the same thing as one particular numerical >>>>>>>>>> evaluation.
That prediction follows directly from the Lorentz
transformation.
Now you are talking about "comparing a solar day to 1/86400 >>>>>>>>>>>> of itself".
Sorry, poor piece of shit, a measurement is
- to compare something to the unit, when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled the unit was
1/86400 of a solar day.-a The idiot's prediction
was that comparing a day to itself is going
to give 99766/86400. What a great idiot he
was.
You are still confusing three different things.
1. the historical definition of the unit;
2. the numerical value assigned to a time interval in one >>>>>>>>>> inertial frame;
3. the Lorentz transformation relating the coordinates of the >>>>>>>>>> same two
-a-a events in another inertial frame.
The calculation starts from an interval already specified in >>>>>>>>>> the Earth's
frame:
Delta t = 86400 s.
That is an input.
Special relativity then predicts the coordinate-time interval >>>>>>>>>> between
the same two events in another inertial frame:
Delta t' = gamma Delta t.
For
v = c/2,
this gives approximately
Delta t' = 99766 s.
Nobody is "comparing a day to itself".
The same pair of events receives different coordinate-time >>>>>>>>>> intervals in
different inertial frames.
That is exactly what Lorentz transformations describe.
More importantly, your objection has nothing to do with
relativity.
Suppose I express the same interval in hours instead of seconds. >>>>>>>>>>
The Earth-frame interval is
24 h,
and the moving observer finds
27.71 h.
Sure, sure, poor piece of shit: if your idiot
guru asserted that comparing a day to
1/24 of a day must give 27.71 - it simply must
be true, no doubt.
Maciej,
No.
Once again, you replace the statement by another one.
Python,
yes.
I never wrote
```
"a solar day contains 99766 seconds".
```
I wrote
You wrote, that The Shit of your idiot guru
predicts that measuring a solar day (i.e. comparing
it to the unit) will give 99766. Right, that's
what the idiot mumbled, and the unit he meant was
1/86400 of a solar day.
Maciej,
There is one point you consistently avoid.
Because it's insignificant.
Special relativity is about assigning coordinates to the **same two >>>>>> spacetime events** in different inertial frames.
The experiment is:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Those are the only events involved.
The question is simply:
What coordinates do those same two events have
in another inertial frame moving at c/2?
No, poor piece of shit. The question is simply:
what will an observer moving with c/2 measure.
That you're too stupid to know what "measure"
means is not my problem. A shame, however,
that not knowing even that you dare opening
your fanatic, lying muzzle here.
Maciej,
No.
I know perfectly well what "measure" means.
Python,
No.
You don't.
A measurement consists in assigning a numerical value to a physical
quantity by comparison with a unit.
That is exactly what is done here.
The physical quantity being measured is the time interval between two
events:
E1 = solar noon on Earth,
E2 = the next solar noon on Earth.
Yes. And the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval. Still your idiot guru
believed somehow-a that the result must be 99766.
Well, the idiot denied Euclidean math later. Denying
that x/(x/86400) = 86400 could possibly be his
intension... But I assume it wasn't.
Maciej,
No.
This is where your argument fails.
You write:
"the unit that time interval was compared to was
1/86400 of that time interval."
No.
That is simply false.
Even historically, before the SI definition, the second was not defined
as
"1/86400 of the particular day being measured."
It was defined from a standard (first the mean solar day
What is the max abberation between
the mean solar day and a particular day,
poor piece of shit? Isn't it less than
0.05%?
For the discussion like the one it is
completely insignificant.
You're just desperately trying to change
the subject, hoping that if you succeed -
bad facts will go away.
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.
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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.
Einstein's original papers are full of them.
The twin paradox is one.
The train-and-platform experiment is another.
Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another.
Saying
-a-a "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.
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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
-a-a "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.
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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.
If one refused to discuss ideal clocks because real clocks are
imperfect, one could not even write the GPS equations.
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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?
No, you have not noticed. You're an idiot.
But it hasn't. Instead it has just pumped you with
those moronic tales of some perfect, gedanken
world where clocks are always identical. Was
enough.
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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.
Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are perfectly identical.
On 8/11/2026 9:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
So we can sum it up:
The Special Theory of Relativity will not predict that
an observer who is crossing Solar System with the speed of c/2
will observe a mean solar day to be ~= 99766 s, because
no postulate of special relativity predicts that number,
and Python impudently lied that there was no prediction,
even if the prediction is as Maciej have said, namely
that Einstein's prediction was that comparing a day to
itself is going to give 99766/86400.
Well done, Maciej. It's all clear now. Efye
Even such a piece of lying shit-a as you are,OK Maciej, you win.
Paul, can't lie non stop. But usually it lies
and this is the case.
Den 11.08.2026 22:15, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/11/2026 9:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
So we can sum it up:
-aThe Special Theory of Relativity will not predict that
-aan observer who is crossing Solar System with the speed of c/2
-awill observe a mean solar day to be ~= 99766 s, because
-ano postulate of special relativity predicts that number,
-aand Python impudently lied that there was no prediction,
-aeven if the prediction is as Maciej have said, namely
-athat Einstein's prediction was that comparing a day to
-aitself-a is going to give 99766/86400.
Well done, Maciej. It's all clear now. Efye
OK Maciej, you win.
Even such a piece of lying shit-a as you are,
Paul, can't lie non stop. But usually it lies
and this is the case.
This argument of yours is so lethal and convincing
that I have to admit that you have falsified SR and GR.
You are obviously right when you believe that you are
much smarter than all the physicists in the world.
Because that is what you rightly believe, isn't it?
"the coordinate-time interval between the same two Earth events,
expressed in another inertial frame, is about 99766 seconds."
Python wrote:
"the coordinate-time interval between the same two Earth events,
expressed in another inertial frame, is about 99766 seconds."
two same events are one event, you fucking stupid
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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?
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A."
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.
That is exactly what theoretical physics does.
Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids.
No physicist believes those objects literally exist.
They are models.
You keep replacing
-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a "all real clocks are identical."
Finally, GPS does not help your argument.
GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model.
Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying physical model.
They are added on top of it.
If your objection were valid, it would invalidate not only relativity
but virtually every theoretical model in physics.
So your objection is clearly not against idealization.
It is only against the idealizations used by relativity.
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a "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
-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a "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.
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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.
And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks"
Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are perfectly identical. >>>>
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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized
-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a and we have to apply corrections."
This is indeed a postulate.
But it is not the postulate of special relativity.
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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.
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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.
And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks"
Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are perfectly identical. >>>>>
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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized
-a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a-a 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?
Well, common sense has been warning the idiot
and the idiots from your bunch of idiots.
Being related with computer science you must
know that competent model building-a is not a
trivial skill. What makes you thinking-a the
idiot had it?
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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.
And nobody has ever claimed that "perfect clocks"
Nobody has ever claimed that all real clocks are perfectly identical. >>>>>
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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized
-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a 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?
Well, common sense has been warning the idiot
and the idiots from your bunch of idiots.
Being related with computer science you must
know that competent model building is not a
trivial skill. What makes you thinking the
idiot had it?
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized
-a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a-a 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.
GPS does not start from the postulate
-a-a t' = t.
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".
It is predicted from the satellites' trajectories and the Earth's gravitational field.
The engineering model then adds ordinary clock errors:
-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a - ageing,
-a-a - temperature,
-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a ...
Those are genuine clock errors.
Relativistic time offsets are not.
If they were merely "clock errors", they would be unpredictable.
In other words:
-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a -> stochastic, hardware-dependent, estimated from measurements;
Calling the second category "clock errors" does not change what they are.
More importantly, if GPS really assumed
-a-a t' = t
as a physical postulate, satellite clocks would remain synchronized
without relativistic corrections.
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized
-a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a-a 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
-a-a 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:
-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a - ageing,
-a-a - temperature,
-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a ...
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:
-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a 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?
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched?
-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted when the
-a-a orbit changes?
A physical model answers those questions.
Yes, GPS continuously maintains a common coordinate time.
The question is not what engineers WANT.
The question is why clocks naturally drift apart if no correction is
applied.
Calling the drift a "clock error" does not explain it.
It merely gives it another name.
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
-acorrections?
- Can you write those equations explicitly?
- Which prediction of special relativity do those equations disagree
-awith?
- Which experimental result is better explained by your interpretation
-athan by relativity?
Those are scientific questions.
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched?
-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted when the >> -a-a 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
-acorrections?
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
-awith?
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
-athan 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.
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched?
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted when the >>> -a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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 >>> -a-acorrections?
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
-a-awith?
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
-a-athan 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:
-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if they're not
-a-a synchronized, it's an error."
This is exactly where we disagree.
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.
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.
Calling the drift an "error" does not explain the drift.
It merely states that you intend to correct it.
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.
A specification does not predict anything.
A physical theory does.
Engineers care about achieving synchronization.
Physicists care about predicting what happens before synchronization is enforced.
Those are complementary questions, not competing ones.
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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.Right. The idealization performed by
It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted when the
-a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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 >>>> -a-acorrections?
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
-a-awith?
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 >>>> -a-athan 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:
-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if they're not >> -a-a 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.
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a 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
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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.Right. The idealization performed by
It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>>
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted
when the
-a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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
-a-acorrections?
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 >>>>> -a-awith?
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 >>>>> -a-athan 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:
-a-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if they're not >>> -a-a-a 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-a 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:
-a-a Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
-a-a "No"
when asked to write them down.
Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict
special relativity.
You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to state
at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking.
Your position has now become:
-a-a GPS uses a model different from relativity;
-a-a you cannot write that model;
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.
And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this.
A systematic error is still characterized by a model:
-a-a its sign,
-a-a its magnitude,
-a-a its dependence on parameters,
-a-a 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.
You still have not provided an alternative model.
On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a identical clocks or for
any other of your moronic delusions.
Including your SI idiocy.
And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to
Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
99766/86400 of itself.
The twin paradox is one.
The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Saying
-a-a-a "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-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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.Right. The idealization performed by
It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be synchronized >>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>>>
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>> when the
-a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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
-a-acorrections?
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 >>>>>> -a-awith?
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 >>>>>> -a-athan 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:
-a-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if they're not
-a-a-a 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-a 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:
-a-a Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
-a-a "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:
-a-a GPS uses a model different from relativity;
-a-a 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:
-a-a its sign,
-a-a its magnitude,
-a-a its dependence on parameters,
-a-a 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.
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-a identical clocks or for
any other of your moronic delusions.
Including your SI idiocy.
And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to
Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
99766/86400 of itself.
Well, I guess a good theological theory
The twin paradox is one.
The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Saying
-a-a-a "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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
should precisely answer whether angels
on a pinhead will dance foxtrot-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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. >>>>>>>>>>>> -a> It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>Right. The idealization performed by
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized
-a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error
-a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>>>>
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>>> when the
-a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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
-a-acorrections?
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 >>>>>>> -a-awith?
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
-a-athan 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:
-a-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if
they're not
-a-a-a 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-a 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:
-a-a-a Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
-a-a-a "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-a 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:
-a-a-a GPS uses a model different from relativity;
-a-a-a 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:
-a-a-a its sign,
-a-a-a its magnitude,
-a-a-a its dependence on parameters,
-a-a-a and the correction to apply.
So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic error, >>> fine.
Then write the equation for that systematic error.
Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't
involved.
You still have not provided an alternative model.
GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing,
but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup.
Maciej,
You have now moved the burden of proof.
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations >>>> or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are
-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a - identical;
-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the clocks at a given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>> relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>> equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks >>>> are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are
-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a - identical;
-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep sync." >>
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>>> relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>>> equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized
clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are >>> -a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the clocks
at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep
sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>>>> relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>>>> equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized
clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are >>>> -a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the clocks
at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep >>>> sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>>>>> equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>> that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>> clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are >>>>> -a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper. >>>>>
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks. >>>>>
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>> sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks. >>>>
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>>>>>>>>> relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>>>>>>>>> equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>>> that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>> clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 paper. >>>>>>
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the clocks. >>>>>>
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>> sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the clocks. >>>>>
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>> special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least >>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and
synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized
clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905
paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive.
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the
clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the
clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>> keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized". >>>>>>
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the
clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a 10 us,
-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to
Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
99766/86400 of itself.
Well, I guess a good theological theory
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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:
-2 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." >>>>>>>>>>>>
tales of perfect identical clocks - until
you start believing they're really perfect.
Of course he is not claiming that every physical clock >>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactured on Earth is perfectly identical.
He is defining an ideal class of clocks suitable for >>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing a coordinate time.
Right. Now, having GPS, we know that his
ideal differently clocks are ideally
unusable for serious measurements - but
his brainwashed doggies don't care.
That is exactly what theoretical physics does.
Yes, that's exactly what your moronic
religion does and always did.
Usually, however there was some sense in
that. Your idiot guru has made an exception.
Fluid mechanics speaks of ideal fluids.
No physicist believes those objects literally exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are models.
You keep replacing
"assume two identical clocks"
by
"all real clocks are identical."
No I don't.
Finally, GPS does not help your argument.
GPS starts from an ideal relativistic clock model.
That's, unfortunely, a plain, impudent lie.
Engineering corrections do not replace the underlying >>>>>>>>>>>>> physical model.
Yes, they do. Sorry, since some incompetent
idiots are selling us unusable religious crap
we have to provide a model of our own.
We start from a postulate of "the clocks are
to be synchronized (i.e. indicating t'=t).
if they don't want to be- it's a clock error
[a perfectly classical phenomenon, well
known to Galileo and Newton and any 10
years old child] and we have to apply
corrections." There is no way of
reconciling our postulate with The
Shit of Einstein. Sorry.
They are added on top of it.
Nope.
If your objection were valid, it would invalidate not only >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity but virtually every theoretical model in physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, a bit yes. but not quite.
So your objection is clearly not against idealization. >>>>>>>>>>>> > It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>Right. The idealization performed by
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
"We start from a postulate that clocks are to be
synchronized
(i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock error >>>>>>>>>>> and we have to apply corrections."
This is indeed a postulate.
But it is not the postulate of special relativity.
But it is a postulate of the model applied in
GPS. They didn't apply your Shit.
Surprise?
Maciej,
No.
This is a factual claim, and it is simply false.
No it is not. You're a fanatic idiot, your
opinion - well, is worthless.
GPS does not start from the postulate
t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect t'=t - wouldn't
they?
That's what they're trying to reach as
closely as possible.
It starts from the opposite observation:
left uncorrected, clocks on GPS satellites and clocks on Earth >>>>>>>>> do not
remain synchronized.
That difference is not treated as a "clock error".
Yes it is.
It is predicted from the satellites' trajectories and the Earth's >>>>>>>>> gravitational field.
Why not? Do you think an error can't be
predicted?
The engineering model then adds ordinary clock errors:
- oscillator instability,
- ageing,
- temperature,
- electronic noise,
...
Those are genuine clock errors.
Relativistic time offsets are not.
There is no such thing as "relativistic time
offset" in GPS model, unfortunately. There is
just another error to deal with. By corrections.
If they were merely "clock errors", they would be unpredictable. >>>>>>>>Never heard of systematic errors?
https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>> and- examples/
In other words:
clock errors
-> stochastic, hardware-dependent, estimated from
measurements;
Never heard of systematic errors? Really?
https://sciencenotes.org/systematic-vs-random-error-differences- >>>>>>>> and- examples/
Calling the second category "clock errors" does not change what >>>>>>>>> they are.
More importantly, if GPS really assumed
t' = t
as a physical postulate, satellite clocks would remain
synchronized
without relativistic corrections.
Newton was definitely assuming t'=t.
Didn't he apply corrections to clocks?
Weren't those corrections predictable?
He had pendulums, you know...
On the other hand - if they applied the
postulates of The Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally, a consequence
of the postulates of your insane guru - that
the clocks are not going to remain
synchronized in a situation like that?
Maciej,
You are still equivocating on the word "error".
Of course systematic errors exist.
Nobody disputes that.
But calling a physical effect an "error" does not make it cease
to be a
physical effect.
Suppose I call gravity a "systematic ruler error".
Objects would still fall with acceleration g.
The equations would remain exactly the same.
The predictions would remain exactly the same.
Only the vocabulary would have changed.
The same applies here.
You may call the relativistic frequency shift of GPS clocks
"a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is launched? >>>>>>>
Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted
when the
orbit changes?
A physical model answers those questions.
But GPS doesn't give a damn to brilliant
answers of your bunch of idiots. It just
NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates
that if they're not synchronized (i.e. they
are not indicating t'=t) - it's an error.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
Yes, GPS continuously maintains a common coordinate time.
Heard of Occam's razor? If your local idiocy
is not needed it doesn't exist.
The question is not what engineers WANT.
Yes it is.
The question is why clocks naturally drift apart if no correction is >>>>>>> applied.
Pfffff. That's because they're clocks.
Calling the drift a "clock error" does not explain it.
Do you feel discomforted, poor idiot?
Nobody cares.
It merely gives it another name.
It's all about the names. Poincare has been trying
to explain that. Not that he understood much.
More generally, you keep avoiding the questions that actually
distinguish
between competing theories.
For example:
- Which equations does your GPS model use to compute the
satellite clock
corrections?
Some of The Shit's equation have some value.
Why not? The most important of them were invented
by Maxwell and Lorentz anyway.
- Can you write those equations explicitly?
No.
- Which prediction of special relativity do those equations disagree >>>>>>> with?
Python, poor trash, your Shit is based
on the Holiest Postulate. ANY frame
dependent correction is violating
its predictions.
- Which experimental result is better explained by your
interpretation
than by relativity?
Time is what clocks indicate, poor trash.
Sorry, the clocks indicate t'=t. If
your idiot guru ever understood what
clocks are and what they're for he
wouldn't fool your moronic religion so
much.
Those are scientific questions.
And engineers don't care about them
much.
Maciej,
Thank you.
For the first time, you are stating your position clearly.
You say:
"GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if
they're not
synchronized, it's an error."
This is exactly where we disagree.
We disagree in almost exactly everything.
You are confusing three completely different things.
1. The engineering objective.
GPS wants all satellite clocks to realize the same coordinate time.
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
2. The observed physical behaviour.
Left to themselves, clocks on different worldlines do not remain
synchronized.
That depends on the details of their
construction. Your moronic religion
has persuaded you its mumble is guaranteed
by some unknown (but powerful) Higher Force
- and you're so stupid that you've bought it.
That's bullshit.
3. The physical model.
The purpose of the model is to predict exactly how and why those
clocks
drift apart, so that the engineering system can compensate for it.
No. The purpose of the model is steering
your thinking and talking.
Calling the drift an "error" does not explain the drift.
It merely states that you intend to correct it.
That's, unfortunately, enough to know you
disobey those mad commands of your mad
guru.
Suppose I build an autopilot.
Its objective is to keep an aircraft on its intended course.
If the aircraft is pushed sideways by a crosswind, the autopilot calls >>>>> that a "tracking error".
Fine.
But the existence of the tracking error does not eliminate the wind.
Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand -
eliminate bullshit about clocks not indicating
t'=t.
A specification does not predict anything.
A physical theory does.
Sure, it can, for instance, predict that
a day compared to 1/86400 of itself is
going to be 99766. And then scream
CONFIRMED!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!". And
cast slanders and other shit at the
ones rotfling.
Engineers care about achieving synchronization.
Physicists care about predicting what happens before
synchronization is
enforced.
Those are complementary questions, not competing ones.
Those are not. While:
"perfect clocks are identical clocks"
and
"perfect clocks are synchronized clocks"
are definitely competing.
I asked you:
Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
"No"
when asked to write them down.
Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict
special relativity.
Well, Python is coming back to lies. No surprise.
You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to
state
at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking.
The Shit of Einstein predicts time, i.e.
what clocks indicate, to be frame dependent.
The GPS model assumes as a postulate the
clocks are going to indicate the same
in every frame. Feel free to see no
difference here, it's already known you're
an idiot.
Your position has now become:
GPS uses a model different from relativity;
you cannot write that model;
A lie, of course, I've written one of its
postulates directly. You've admitted it is
not a postulate of your Shit.
Different clock technologies have different instrumental drifts.
But the relativistic contribution has a very specific dependence on
motion and gravitational potential.
A physical model predicts that dependence.
Calling everything a "clock error" merely changes the terminology.
Unfortunately, that's enough. Poincare has been
trying to explain idiots like you that it's
all about terminology - but it was hopeless, and
anyway - he didn't understand much.
And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this.
A systematic error is still characterized by a model:
its sign,
its magnitude,
its dependence on parameters,
and the correction to apply.
So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic error, >>> fine.
Then write the equation for that systematic error.
Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't
involved.
You still have not provided an alternative model.
GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing,
but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup.
Maciej,
You have now moved the burden of proof.
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Simply saying
"GPS has provided it"
is not an argument.
I could equally write
"Somebody has another theory."
That says nothing until the theory is stated.
Notice that I have never asked you to derive the GPS model yourself.
I only asked a much simpler question:
Which equations does it use?
You answered that you could not write them.
Then, a few lines later, you nevertheless asserted that those unknown equations contradict special relativity.
That conclusion simply does not follow.
More importantly, you still avoid the essential point.
You say that GPS assumes, as a postulate,
"all clocks should indicate the same time."
No.
That is the engineering objective.
It is not a physical law.
A thermostat has the objective of maintaining 20 -#C.
That does not imply that rooms naturally stay at 20 -#C.
The thermostat needs a physical model of heat transfer in order to know
how much heating to apply.
Likewise, GPS needs a physical model predicting how clocks naturally
evolve before any correction is applied.
Otherwise there is no way to compute the corrections.
So I ask again, very simply:
Which equations predict the natural evolution of GPS clock rates
before synchronization corrections are applied?
Not the control objective.
Not the correction algorithm.
The physical prediction.
That is the model we are discussing.
A scientific disagreement is about equations and predictions.
Not about who calls something an "error".
Changing the name of a phenomenon does not change the phenomenon.
On 08/13/2026 04:57 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself.
Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I guess a good theological theory
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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:
-2 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." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand -
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. >>>>>
eliminate bullshit about clocks not indicating
t'=t.
A specification does not predict anything.
A physical theory does.
Sure, it can, for instance, predict that
a day compared to 1/86400 of itself is
going to be 99766. And then scream
CONFIRMED!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!". And
cast slanders and other shit at the
ones rotfling.
Engineers care about achieving synchronization.
Physicists care about predicting what happens before
synchronization is
enforced.
Those are complementary questions, not competing ones.
Those are not. While:
"perfect clocks are identical clocks"
and
"perfect clocks are synchronized clocks"
are definitely competing.
I asked you:
Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
"No"
when asked to write them down.
Yet you simultaneously claim that those unknown equations contradict
special relativity.
Well, Python is coming back to lies. No surprise.
You cannot establish that two models disagree without being able to
state
at least the equations or predictions of the model you are invoking.
The Shit of Einstein predicts time, i.e.
what clocks indicate, to be frame dependent.
The GPS model assumes as a postulate the
clocks are going to indicate the same
in every frame. Feel free to see no
difference here, it's already known you're
an idiot.
Your position has now become:
GPS uses a model different from relativity;
you cannot write that model;
A lie, of course, I've written one of its
postulates directly. You've admitted it is
not a postulate of your Shit.
Different clock technologies have different instrumental drifts.
But the relativistic contribution has a very specific dependence on
motion and gravitational potential.
A physical model predicts that dependence.
Calling everything a "clock error" merely changes the terminology.
Unfortunately, that's enough. Poincare has been
trying to explain idiots like you that it's
all about terminology - but it was hopeless, and
anyway - he didn't understand much.
And your systematic-error argument does not rescue this.
A systematic error is still characterized by a model:
its sign,
its magnitude,
its dependence on parameters,
and the correction to apply.
So if you claim that the relativistic term is merely a systematic
error,
fine.
Then write the equation for that systematic error.
Why me? It's not my model, it's GPS model. I wasn't
involved.
You still have not provided an alternative model.
GPS has provided it. It's not a great thing,
but not something for 10 minutes on a newsgroup.
Maciej,
You have now moved the burden of proof.
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Simply saying
"GPS has provided it"
is not an argument.
I could equally write
"Somebody has another theory."
That says nothing until the theory is stated.
Notice that I have never asked you to derive the GPS model yourself.
I only asked a much simpler question:
Which equations does it use?
You answered that you could not write them.
Then, a few lines later, you nevertheless asserted that those unknown
equations contradict special relativity.
That conclusion simply does not follow.
More importantly, you still avoid the essential point.
You say that GPS assumes, as a postulate,
"all clocks should indicate the same time."
No.
That is the engineering objective.
It is not a physical law.
A thermostat has the objective of maintaining 20 -#C.
That does not imply that rooms naturally stay at 20 -#C.
The thermostat needs a physical model of heat transfer in order to know
how much heating to apply.
Likewise, GPS needs a physical model predicting how clocks naturally
evolve before any correction is applied.
Otherwise there is no way to compute the corrections.
So I ask again, very simply:
Which equations predict the natural evolution of GPS clock rates
before synchronization corrections are applied?
Not the control objective.
Not the correction algorithm.
The physical prediction.
That is the model we are discussing.
A scientific disagreement is about equations and predictions.
Not about who calls something an "error".
Changing the name of a phenomenon does not change the phenomenon.
Hm. Sort of like, "Parameterized Post-Newtonian".
Thanks for writing, I suggest that the tone and style shows improvement.
You keep contrasting
-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and
synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his 1905 >>>>>>>>> paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>> clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>> clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>> keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay synchronized". >>>>>>>>
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>> clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be
resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
No, they do not.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>> keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay
synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information
engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>> resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a not synchronized => broken.
On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>>> keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay
synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information
engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>> resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a not synchronized => broken.
Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Don't give a damn to what your insane
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>> another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>>
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information
engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>>> resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >>>>
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a-a not synchronized => broken.
Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately notice the category error.
"Identical" is a property of an individual clock.
On 8/14/2026 7:27 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Don't give a damn to what your insane
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
Maciej,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-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>>>
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>>>> engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>>>>> resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >>>>>
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a-a not synchronized => broken.
Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately
notice the category error.
"Identical" is a property of an individual clock.
Excuse me, "identical" is what?
Le 14/08/2026 |a 19:38, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 7:27 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 6:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Don't give a damn to what your insane
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
Maciej,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-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another".
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldlines.
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>>>>>>
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>>>>>> engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and >>>>>>>>> must be
resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be
"broken".
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite >>>>> clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a-a not synchronized => broken.
Of course I didn't. You lie, like usual, and
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
As "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", you should immediately >>> notice the category error.
"Identical" is a property of an individual clock.
Excuse me, "identical" is what?
Maciej,
We are probably using different meanings of the word "identical".
Please define it.
Do you mean
(A) same physical construction?
(B) same calibration?
(C) same displayed reading?
(D) something else?
Because throughout this discussion you seem to switch between those
meanings.
In engineering, those are different concepts.
In Einstein's 1905 paper, "another clock in all respects resembling the
one at A" clearly refers to (A).
Synchronization is introduced afterwards.
So Einstein explicitly distinguishes the two notions.
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 6:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 18:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 5:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 17:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 4:48 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 16:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 3:03 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/08/2026 |a 14:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/13/2026 1:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 20:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 7:57 PM, Python wrote:Yes, the idiot is pumping you with the
Le 12/08/2026 |a 19:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 6:34 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/08/2026 |a 18:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2026 5:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 11/08/2026 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2026 7:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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-a identical clocks or for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other of your moronic delusions.
Including your SI idiocy.
And, completely lost in his gedanken delusions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot mumbled about a day being equal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 99766/86400 of itself.
Einstein's original papers are full of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I guess a good theological theory
The twin paradox is one.
The train-and-platform experiment is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Synchronizing clocks by light signals is another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Saying
-a-a-a "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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
should precisely answer whether angels
on a pinhead will dance foxtrot-a or
can-can.
But, unfortunately, the clocks of the
real world-a 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-a 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-a 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:
-2 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
-a-a-a "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
-a-a-a "assume two identical clocks"
by
-a-a-a "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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -a> It is only against the idealizations used by relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Right. The idealization performed by
your idiot guru was special.
Maciej,
You write:
-a-a-a "We start from a postulate that clocks are to be >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized
-a-a-a-a (i.e. t' = t). If they don't want to be, it's a clock >>>>>>>>>>>> error
-a-a-a-a 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
-a-a-a t' = t.
Yes it does. In GPS if-a clocks were
perfect they would be perfectly synchronized,
i.e. indicating perfect-a 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:
-a-a-a - oscillator instability,
-a-a-a - ageing,
-a-a-a - temperature,
-a-a-a - electronic noise,
-a-a-a ...
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:
-a-a-a clock errors
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> 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
-a-a-a 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-a Shit - the satellite
clocks wouldn't-a remain synchronized at
all.
Isn't that, accidentally,-a a consequence
of the-a 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-a-a "a systematic clock error"
if you wish.
But then you still have to answer exactly the same questions:
-a-a-a Why does it have precisely that magnitude?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the satellite's velocity?
-a-a-a Why does it depend on the gravitational potential?
-a-a-a Why is it accurately predicted before the satellite is >>>>>>>> launched?
-a-a-a Why do the required corrections change exactly as predicted >>>>>>>> when the
-a-a-a 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)-a - 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.
-aCalling 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
-a-acorrections?
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
-a-awith?
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
-a-athan 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:
-a-a-a "GPS NEEDS synchronized clocks, so it postulates that if
they're not
-a-a-a 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-a 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.Clocks indicating t'=t, on the other hand -
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. >>>>>
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:
-a-a-a Which equations does the GPS model use?
You answered:
-a-a-a "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-a 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:
-a-a-a GPS uses a model different from relativity;
-a-a-a 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:
-a-a-a its sign,
-a-a-a its magnitude,
-a-a-a its dependence on parameters,
-a-a-a 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-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 18:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 15:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:37, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 14:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 13:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:
..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved
they're mutually exclusive.
The idiot was soooooo proud that
the clocks he invented won't keep
sync....
Maciej,
Your claim is now:
-a-a-a "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> clocks are
-a-a-a mutually exclusive."
No.
That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper.
The construction is:
-a-a-a 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a 2. Synchronize them.
-a-a-a 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>>
At the initial event the clocks are therefore
-a-a-a - identical;
-a-a-a - synchronized.
So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim.
Take two identical atomic clocks.
Place them side by side.
Adjust them so that both display
-a-a-a 12:00:00.
Are they identical?
-a-a-a Yes.
Are they synchronized?
-a-a-a Yes.
Therefore
-a-a-a identical AND synchronized
is perfectly possible.
Conversely, the two notions are logically independent.
Two clocks may be
-a-a-a - identical but not synchronized;
-a-a-a - synchronized but not identical;
-a-a-a - identical and synchronized;
-a-a-a - neither.
There is no logical contradiction.
The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a
given event according to a synchronization procedure.
Those are different concepts.
Your last sentence is also incorrect.
You write:
-a-a-a "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>> keep sync."
No.
Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay
synchronized".
Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're
just such a pathetic piece of lying shit
That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks.
The clocks are just great - they don't work,
but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor.
Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed
idiot.
Maciej,
No.
You are changing the statement again.
Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work".
Don't give a damn to what your insane
Shit mumbles or not.
They're not in sync = they don't work.
You may check GPS.
Your premise is false.
Working correctly means
Sure. In your mad religion correct
is whatever your mad guru announce to
be correct, proper is whatever your mad
guru announce to be proper, good is
whatever your mad guru announce to
be good - and if it doesn't work
it's "spacetime" to blame, not your
mad guru.
I know that.
Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor,
poor brainwashed idiot.
Maciej,
You keep repeating
-a-a-a "not synchronized = not working."
Repeating it does not make it true.
As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information
engineer,
you know perfectly well that these are different concepts.
Consider a distributed computer system.
Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by
-a-a-a 10 us,
-a-a-a 10 ms,
-a-a-a or 10 s.
They are no longer synchronized.
Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working?
Of course not.
It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>> resynchronized.
GPS is exactly the same.
Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks.
They are not "broken".
That's what a postulate of some made idiot
is asserting, sure.
GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate,
however. So - yes, they are.
Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that
his perfect differently clocks will not keep
sync (except of some practically almost
unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot
- he was right about that. Yes, identical
and synchronized clocks exclude each other.
Maciej,
Now you are making a very strong claim.
You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken".
No, they do not.
No, they do not. Why would they?
The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just
like the engineers assumed they should.
If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy -
it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers,
however.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually progress.
A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite
clocks "broken."
Now you say something different.
You write:
-a-a "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy."
Exactly.
That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system.
It is not a statement that the clocks are defective.
In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that
-a-a not synchronized => broken.
Because if the clocks naturally drift away from t'=t and are then
corrected back to t'=t, they are not broken.
They are simply being synchronized.
That is exactly how every distributed timing system works.
More importantly, you still have not answered the central question.
How does GPS know what correction to apply?
The answer cannot be
-a-a "because we want t'=t."
That is merely the objective.
Le 14/08/2026 |a 12:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/08/2026 |a 08:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote:..
You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special
relativity.
Very well.
Then one of two things must be true.
Either you know that model.
Or you do not.
How about - I know its part [one of the-a chief
postulates]?
Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks
to be-a identical. GPS (and any sane people as well)
is-a postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's
not the same and it is excluding each other.
If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its
equations
or predictions.
If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it
contradicts relativity.
Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion
of what I can or not is utterly worthless.
Maciej,
There is a simple logical mistake in your argument.
You keep contrasting
-a-a-a "identical clocks"
with
-a-a-a "synchronized clocks"
as if they were mutually exclusive.
They are not.
Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are.
He was an idiot but he was right in that.
In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim.
You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks
are equivalent.
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
how to synchronize clocks?
If they were already synchronized by virtue of being identical, that
section would have been unnecessary.
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and not what
the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
-a-a "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>>> how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
-a-a "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
"His" synchronization procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
announcing that synchronization is evil
and should be abandoned, because it violates
some moronic symmetry.
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
"If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
The 1905 construction is not
"look at B and read its current time."
It is
1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
(tA1 + tA2)/2.
This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
It is using the measured round-trip propagation time to define
simultaneity.
In modern terminology, this is exactly a two-way time-transfer protocol.
It is conceptually very similar to what computer scientists know as a
ping.
So your statement
"Einstein didn't calculate the delay"
is simply incorrect.
The delay is the whole point of the construction.
You also write that one must "measure the delay by hand."
But the round-trip measurement
tA2 - tA1
IS precisely that measurement.
Nothing has been forgotten.
Finally, you write that otherwise "both clocks would run backwards."
No.
Nothing in Einstein's synchronization procedure predicts clocks running backwards.
If you believe it does, then please provide the calculation.
Which equations lead to that conclusion?
Because neither Einstein's paper nor the Lorentz transformations produce
such a result.
Ironically, what you call
"a process similar to ping"
is essentially what Einstein proposed in 1905.
The idea is more than a century old.
Le 15/08/2026 |a 14:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the
distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real
and not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this
way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock
would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and
both clocks run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
-a-a-a "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for >>> that propagation delay.
"His" synchronization procedure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
announcing that synchronization is evil
and should be abandoned, because it violates
some moronic symmetry.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually another interesting concession.
You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used
by telegraphers.
Exactly.
Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's
invention.
In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of
distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for
railways, telegraph networks and geodesy.
Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions.
As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway
stations using telegraphic signals.
So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before Einstein.
But that completely misses Einstein's contribution.
Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals.
He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of coordinate time.
That is a completely different achievement.
Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce.
After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an inertial reference frame.
The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick.
It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates.
That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary.
Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather
than refutes him.
And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days.
You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, unusable and abandoned.
Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used successfully by engineers before Einstein.
Those two claims cannot both be true.
Finally, there is another irony.
As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the
difference between
-a-a implementing a protocol
and
-a-a defining the semantics of the protocol.
Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol.
Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the foundation of coordinate time.
On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 14:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to
defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't
calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its
present state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the
distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real
and not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this
way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock
would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and
both clocks run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand'
into your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is
called 'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
"If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate
for
that propagation delay.
"His" synchronization procedure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
announcing that synchronization is evil
and should be abandoned, because it violates
some moronic symmetry.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually another interesting concession.
You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used
by telegraphers.
Exactly.
Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's
invention.
In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of
distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for
railways, telegraph networks and geodesy.
Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions.
As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the
synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway
stations using telegraphic signals.
So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before
Einstein.
But that completely misses Einstein's contribution.
Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals.
He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of
coordinate time.
That is a completely different achievement.
Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there
already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce.
After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an
inertial reference frame.
The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick.
It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates.
That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary.
Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather
than refutes him.
And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days.
You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd,
unusable and abandoned.
Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used
successfully by engineers before Einstein.
Those two claims cannot both be true.
Finally, there is another irony.
As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the
difference between
implementing a protocol
and
defining the semantics of the protocol.
Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol.
Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the
foundation of coordinate time.
... in his dreamt gedankenwelt.
On 08/15/2026 08:59 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 14:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to
defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't
calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its
present state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the
distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>>>> and not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this
way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock
would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and
both clocks run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand'
into your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is
called 'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
"If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate >>>>> for
that propagation delay.
"His" synchronization procedure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
announcing that synchronization is evil
and should be abandoned, because it violates
some moronic symmetry.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually another interesting concession.
You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used >>> by telegraphers.
Exactly.
Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's
invention.
In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of
distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for
railways, telegraph networks and geodesy.
Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions.
As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the
synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway
stations using telegraphic signals.
So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before
Einstein.
But that completely misses Einstein's contribution.
Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals.
He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of
coordinate time.
That is a completely different achievement.
Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed
there
already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce.
After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an >>> inertial reference frame.
The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick.
It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates.
That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper
revolutionary.
Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather
than refutes him.
And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days.
You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd,
unusable and abandoned.
Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been
used
successfully by engineers before Einstein.
Those two claims cannot both be true.
Finally, there is another irony.
As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the
difference between
implementing a protocol
and
defining the semantics of the protocol.
Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol.
Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the
foundation of coordinate time.
... in his dreamt gedankenwelt.
There was a perfectly good account of the telegrapher's equation,
held up by the greatest minds of the day, and it was wrong,
and the submarine cable they sank was a folly, then Heaviside's
telegrapher's equation, which he told them was correct all along,
was adopted since it was less wrong, so, Einstein following Maxwell,
yet Heaviside actually being right about these things, has that
Einstein just keeps things simple, sometimes too simple.
Then, Einstein's actual account is much simpler that what's often
contrived from it, yet that's not all on him, since it's basically
a hodge-podge of all what came before.
Indeed, Heaviside and FitzGerald and Larmour are great 19'th century electricians, since Faraday and quite after Ampere and Coulomb and
so on, each of which have their own "laws" of electricity, that don't necessarily agree with otherwise the "fluid" model of electricity,
that Maxwell's then Ohm's and Kirchhoff's "laws" of circuits,
provide for neat closed forms in arithmetic, algebra, and some
trigonometry (which then complex analysis sits on).
Calling that itself a closed form is unfair to the overall
nature of the form of the energy, the real "law".
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
The word "identical" may have different meanings,
but when Einstein said:
"another clock in all respects resembling the one at A".
Then the property of the two clocks that must be equal (identical)
is their _rate_ (frequency). Their reading (phase) do not have to
be equal; they do not have to be synchronised.
A "postulate" is a fact that always must be true if
the theory based on the postulate is valid.
(e.g. the speed of light is c in all inertial frames)
You cannot _postulate_ two clocks to be synchronised,
because two clocks do not have to be synchronous.
So let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the SI-definition of second inbuilt.
quote continue:
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
quote continue:
"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
The clock rates are offset by +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
This is partly due to gravitational blue shift, and
partly due to the speed of the SV relative to the non
rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
So to make the clock in the SV to have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronise
them. But that's another story.
On 08/15/2026 11:33 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
The word "identical" may have different meanings,
but when Einstein said:
"another clock in all respects resembling the one at A".
Then the property of the two clocks that must be equal (identical)
is their _rate_ (frequency). Their reading (phase) do not have to
be equal; they do not have to be synchronised.
A "postulate" is a fact that always must be true if
the theory based on the postulate is valid.
(e.g. the speed of light is c in all inertial frames)
You cannot _postulate_ two clocks to be synchronised,
because two clocks do not have to be synchronous.
So let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the
SI-definition of second inbuilt.
quote continue:
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
quote continue:
"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
The clock rates are offset by +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
This is partly due to gravitational blue shift, and
partly due to the speed of the SV relative to the non
rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
So to make the clock in the SV to have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronise
them. But that's another story.
Light's speed as constant in a frame still has that
anywhere there's a "tensor" that's not a "vector":
that's two frames.
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
Le 15/08/2026 |a 10:51, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:..
Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
how to synchronize clocks?
Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
state, but in a state some time before.
The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
not what the remote clock does.
If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
run backwards after a while.
To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
'ping' in the internet.
But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
-a-a "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
The 1905 construction is not
-a-a "look at B and read its current time."
It is
-a-a 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
-a-a 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
-a-a 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
-a-a (tA1 + tA2)/2.
This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Le 16/08/2026 |a 06:55, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
-a-a "would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 06:55, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
-a-a "would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein,
sure.
That means:
Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!!
He has predicted that it would appear!!! And
it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
Le 16/08/2026 |a 12:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 06:55, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing >>>>> throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
-a-a-a "would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein,
sure.
That means:
Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!!
He has predicted that it would appear!!! And
it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
Maciej,
You are mocking the sentence
-a-a "it would appear"
as if making a prediction were somehow ridiculous.
But making quantitative predictions is precisely what physical theories are supposed to do.
GPS engineers did not write
-a-a "Praise Einstein!"
That specification says:
-a-a if the onboard oscillator is preset to
-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2299999954326 MHz,
-a-a then it will APPEAR as
-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2300000000 MHz
-a-a to an observer in the Earth-centered reference frame.
On 8/16/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 12:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 06:55, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing >>>>>> throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
-a-a-a "would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein,
sure.
That means:
Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!!
He has predicted that it would appear!!! And
it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
Maciej,
You are mocking the sentence
-a-a "it would appear"
as if making a prediction were somehow ridiculous.
But making quantitative predictions is precisely what physical theories are >> supposed to do.
Sure. It can, for instance, predict that
a day compared to 1/86400 of a day will give
99766. Praise our idiot guru and his
magnificient predictions.
GPS engineers did not write
-a-a "Praise Einstein!"
But that was the meaning of this nonsense
put into serious documentation by a
some brainwashed fanatic.
They wrote an engineering specification.
That specification says:
-a-a if the onboard oscillator is preset to
-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2299999954326 MHz,
-a-a then it will APPEAR as
-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2300000000 MHz
-a-a to an observer in the Earth-centered reference frame.
So you didn't even read Paul's quoting.
Why am I not surprised.
Le 16/08/2026 |a 13:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/16/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 12:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/16/2026 12:24 PM, Python wrote:
Le 16/08/2026 |a 06:55, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing >>>>>>> throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej,
No.
The phrase
-a-a-a "would appear"
is exactly what an engineer should write.
If he is brainwashed by The Shit of Einstein,
sure.
That means:
Praise our idiot guru!!! He has PREDICTED!!!!
He has predicted that it would appear!!! And
it would appear!!! Praise our idiot guru!!!!
Maciej,
You are mocking the sentence
-a-a-a "it would appear"
as if making a prediction were somehow ridiculous.
But making quantitative predictions is precisely what physical
theories are
supposed to do.
Sure. It can, for instance, predict that
a day compared to 1/86400 of a day will give
99766. Praise our idiot guru and his
magnificient predictions.
GPS engineers did not write
-a-a-a "Praise Einstein!"
But that was the meaning of this nonsense
put into serious documentation by a
some brainwashed fanatic.
-a They wrote an engineering specification.
That specification says:
-a-a-a if the onboard oscillator is preset to
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2299999954326 MHz,
-a-a-a then it will APPEAR as
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 10.2300000000 MHz
-a-a-a to an observer in the Earth-centered reference frame.
So you didn't even read Paul's quoting.
Why am I not surprised.
Maciej,
I did read Paul's quotation.
In fact, my previous message was specifically about the words
-a-a "as it appears to an observer on the ground."
Those words are not accidental.
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
So you snip everything I wrote without reading it,
and call it a lie. Pathetic!
I challenge you:
Read the following, and if you find something which you think
is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong.
Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
-a "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
-a-a coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the SI-definition of second inbuilt.
-a "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
-a-a observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
-a "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-a-a -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-a-a -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
-a-a The clock rates are offset by-a +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
-a-a This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Yes, the time reported from each SV is indeed synchronous
within few ns to the GPS master clock at Schriever SFB Colorado.
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Den 16.08.2026 06:55, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej, you are really a funny guy! :-D
This document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Is the GPS Interface Specification Document which describe
the interface (signals) between the GPS-SV and the GPS receiver
in detail.
Both the GPS-SVs and the GPS-receivers are built according
to this _specification_, and we know that the GPS works.
And you claim that this specification must written by
"a brainwashed Shit worshipper"! :-D
Do you really belive that the GPS doesn't work?
Is it possible to be _that_ ignorant?
On 8/16/2026 10:57 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.08.2026 06:55, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 11:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 15/08/2026 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
idiot.
Maciej,
Paul has just pointed out the distinction that you have been missing
throughout this discussion.
There are three different concepts.
-a-a-a frequency (clock rate)
-a-a-a phase (clock reading)
-a-a-a synchronization (equal phase)
GPS explicitly specifies the first.
It specifies - that it "would appear".
Must be a brainwashed Shit worshipper
writing that, otherwise "would appear"
would never-a take place in any engineering
specification.
Nobady has to care about something that
"would appear". If you weren't such a
dishonest piece of shit you would admit,
and Paul as well.
Maciej, you are really a funny guy! :-D
This document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Is the GPS Interface Specification Document which describe
the interface (signals) between the GPS-SV and the GPS receiver
in detail.
Both the GPS-SVs and the GPS-receivers are built according
to this _specification_, and we know that the GPS works.
And you claim that this specification must written by
"a brainwashed Shit worshipper"! :-D
Some of them are engineers, why not.
As already told to your fellow idiot - no
decent engineer would ever put "would
appear"-a into technical specification.
On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
So you snip everything I wrote without reading it,
and call it a lie. Pathetic!
Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping
impudent lies is no way pathetic.
I challenge you:
Read the following, and if you find something which you think
is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong.
Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
-a-a "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
-a-a-a coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the
SI-definition of second inbuilt.
A lie, of course - your SI idiocy
is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV
clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting
it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit.
-a-a "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
-a-a-a observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is.
The second of GPS is different. Engineers
made it according to their own postulates,
not the postulates of your idiot guru.
-a-a "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-a-a-a -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-a-a-a -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
-a-a-a The clock rates are offset by-a +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
-a-a-a This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
No, poor trash, that doesn't mean.
So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
"would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't.
A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL
(not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give
10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad
postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks
according to their own.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop -
so sometimes you admit that the real measurement
results have little in common with that
mad mumble of your idiot guru.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Yes, the time reported from each SV is indeed synchronous
within few ns to the GPS master clock at Schriever SFB Colorado.
Yes they are.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
(This time is called"GPS-system time")
The GPS wouldn't work otherwise.
The _rate_ of the SV-clocks are adjusted down prior to launch.
But the reading (phase) of the clocks are not normally adjusted
while the SVs are in service. No clock is infinitely precise,
so the SV-clocks will drift off sync and will usually be several
microseconds off sync.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
(A bit old, but it illustrates the point.)
The PRN identifies the SV.
Note that all the clocks are several ++s, some hundreds of ++s off sync.
The SVs are monitored by 17 monitoring stations. Every SV is
at any time tracked by at least one station.
See: https://www.gps.gov/control-segment
These monitoring stations measure the behaviour of the clocks
and the orbit. Correctional data are uploaded to the SV as needed.
The SVs will send these correctional data to the receiver.
The corrections are done in the receiver.
The correctional data related to time are the coefficients
in the time correction polynomial.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
or: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
It is the corrected time 't' that will be synchronous to
GPS-system time within few ns.
So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from
the satellites in sync.
It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. Efye
Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
So you snip everything I wrote without reading it,
and call it a lie. Pathetic!
Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping
impudent lies is no way pathetic.
I challenge you:
Read the following, and if you find something which you think
is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong.
Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
-a-a "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
-a-a-a coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." >>>
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the
SI-definition of second inbuilt.
A lie, of course - your SI idiocy
is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV
clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting
it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit.
-a-a "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
-a-a-a observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is.
The second of GPS is different. Engineers
made it according to their own postulates,
not the postulates of your idiot guru.
-a-a "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-a-a-a -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-a-a-a -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
-a-a-a The clock rates are offset by-a +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
-a-a-a This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
No, poor trash, that doesn't mean.
So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
"would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't.
A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL
(not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give
10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad
postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks
according to their own.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop -
so sometimes you admit that the real measurement
results have little in common with that
mad mumble of your idiot guru.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Yes, the time reported from each SV is indeed synchronous
within few ns to the GPS master clock at Schriever SFB Colorado.
Yes they are.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
(This time is called"GPS-system time")
The GPS wouldn't work otherwise.
The _rate_ of the SV-clocks are adjusted down prior to launch.
But the reading (phase) of the clocks are not normally adjusted
while the SVs are in service. No clock is infinitely precise,
so the SV-clocks will drift off sync and will usually be several
microseconds off sync.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
(A bit old, but it illustrates the point.)
The PRN identifies the SV.
Note that all the clocks are several ++s, some hundreds of ++s off sync. >>>
The SVs are monitored by 17 monitoring stations. Every SV is
at any time tracked by at least one station.
See: https://www.gps.gov/control-segment
These monitoring stations measure the behaviour of the clocks
and the orbit. Correctional data are uploaded to the SV as needed.
The SVs will send these correctional data to the receiver.
The corrections are done in the receiver.
The correctional data related to time are the coefficients
in the time correction polynomial.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
or: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
It is the corrected time 't' that will be synchronous to
GPS-system time within few ns.
So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from
the satellites in sync.
It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. Efye
I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be
as stupid and ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be.
You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document
is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work.
Are you _really_ this ignorant or are you pretending?
In the latter case - why?
Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from the
satellites in sync.
It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. Efye
I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be as stupid and
ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be.
You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work.
Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
-a-a (tA1 + tA2)/2.
But this is WRONG!
If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not
be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns.
On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from- a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
So you snip everything I wrote without reading it,
and call it a lie. Pathetic!
Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping
impudent lies is no way pathetic.
I challenge you:
Read the following, and if you find something which you think
is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong.
Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
- "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
- - coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV."
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the SI-definition of second inbuilt.
A lie, of course - your SI idiocy
is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV
clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting
it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit.
- "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
- - observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is.
The second of GPS is different. Engineers
made it according to their own postulates,
not the postulates of your idiot guru.
- "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
- - -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
- - -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
- - The clock rates are offset by- +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
- - This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
No, poor trash, that doesn't mean.
So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
"would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't.
A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL
(not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give
10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad
postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks
according to their own.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop -
so sometimes you admit that the real measurement
results have little in common with that
mad mumble of your idiot guru.
Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling
madmen.
Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate"
and "synchronise" mean.
Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected
from-a a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit.
So you snip everything I wrote without reading it,
and call it a lie. Pathetic!
Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping
impudent lies is no way pathetic.
I challenge you:
Read the following, and if you find something which you think
is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong.
Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks:
(SV = Space Vehicle, satellite)
GPS Interface Specification Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
-a-a "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
-a-a-a coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." >>>
It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock.
This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the
SI-definition of second inbuilt.
A lie, of course - your SI idiocy
is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV
clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting
it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit.
-a-a "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
-a-a-a observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is
in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition
of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second.
The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground
and everywhere.
Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is.
The second of GPS is different. Engineers
made it according to their own postulates,
not the postulates of your idiot guru.
-a-a "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
-a-a-a -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV
-a-a-a -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
-a-a-a The clock rates are offset by-a +of/f = -4.4647E-10.
-a-a-a This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
NOTE THIS:
==========
This means:
If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz,
then the frequency received on the ground would be
10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz.
No, poor trash, that doesn't mean.
So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate
as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in
the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10).
10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz.
"would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't.
A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL
(not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give
10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad
postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks
according to their own.
This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity,
and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works.
Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop -
so sometimes you admit that the real measurement
results have little in common with that
mad mumble of your idiot guru.
And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like
the engineers postulated them to be.
Yes, the time reported from each SV is indeed synchronous
within few ns to the GPS master clock at Schriever SFB Colorado.
Yes they are.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
(This time is called"GPS-system time")
The GPS wouldn't work otherwise.
The _rate_ of the SV-clocks are adjusted down prior to launch.
But the reading (phase) of the clocks are not normally adjusted
while the SVs are in service. No clock is infinitely precise,
so the SV-clocks will drift off sync and will usually be several
microseconds off sync.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
(A bit old, but it illustrates the point.)
The PRN identifies the SV.
Note that all the clocks are several ++s, some hundreds of ++s off sync. >>>
The SVs are monitored by 17 monitoring stations. Every SV is
at any time tracked by at least one station.
See: https://www.gps.gov/control-segment
These monitoring stations measure the behaviour of the clocks
and the orbit. Correctional data are uploaded to the SV as needed.
The SVs will send these correctional data to the receiver.
The corrections are done in the receiver.
The correctional data related to time are the coefficients
in the time correction polynomial.
See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
or: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
It is the corrected time 't' that will be synchronous to
GPS-system time within few ns.
So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from
the satellites in sync.
It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. Efye
I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be
as stupid and ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be.
You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document
is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:01:23 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,780 |